Grocery shoppers in Maryland will no longer face the risk of paying a different price than the person next to them for the same box of cereal, based on data harvested from their phones or browsing habits. Governor Wes Moore signed HB 895 into law during the 2026 legislative session, making Maryland the first state to ban retailers and platforms from using personal surveillance data to set individualized grocery prices. The law arrives as federal regulators and at least one major delivery platform have already flagged the practice as a growing concern.
How HB 895 changes grocery pricing rules in Maryland
The new law targets a specific mechanism: the use of personal data, including location history, purchase records, and browsing behavior, to charge different consumers different prices for identical products at the same store. According to the governor’s office, the legislation classifies violations as unfair or deceptive trade practices, giving state enforcers a clear legal basis to act against retailers or third-party platforms that personalize prices using surveillance-style data collection.
The bill moved through the 2026 Regular Session of the Maryland General Assembly. While the governor’s office describes the measure as making Maryland “the first state” to prohibit these practices, the bill docket itself does not include a published fiscal note or economic impact analysis. That gap matters because it leaves open the question of how much compliance will cost grocers and delivery apps operating in the state, and whether smaller retailers face a disproportionate burden.
The hypothesis that Maryland’s ban will push platforms toward uniform base pricing is reasonable but hard to test right now. Measuring pre- and post-law price variance on apps like Instacart across Maryland zip codes versus control states would require access to granular transaction data that neither regulators nor researchers have publicly released. Without that baseline, any claim about industry-wide shifts remains speculative.
HB 895 also raises practical questions about what counts as “individualized” pricing. Traditional discounts-such as weekly circulars, in-store loyalty programs, or coupons clipped from mailers-are not the core target of the law, because they are offered on the same terms to any shopper who joins or redeems them. The statute instead focuses on prices that quietly change based on a person’s digital trail: how often they buy a product, whether they live in a higher-income neighborhood, or how urgently they appear to need a particular item. The state’s consumer protection framework, administered through agencies listed on the main Maryland portal, will now treat this kind of opaque personalization as a deceptive practice when it affects grocery items.
Enforcement will likely hinge on documentation and audits. Regulators would need to show that a company used personal data to assign different prices to similarly situated customers buying the same product at the same time. That could involve reviewing internal algorithms and pricing rules, or comparing transaction records that reveal systematic differences not explained by promotions or inventory. Because many pricing engines are proprietary, the law effectively invites more scrutiny of how retailers and platforms design and justify their digital tools.
Federal scrutiny and Instacart’s retreat preceded the ban
Maryland did not act in isolation. The Federal Trade Commission issued findings earlier showing that companies draw on a wide range of personal data to set individualized consumer prices. The FTC’s study, while noting limitations tied to anonymization and aggregation, confirmed that the practice extends across sectors and relies on data most consumers do not realize is being collected.
Separately, Instacart ended a program in which users could see different prices for the same item at the same store. The company discontinued its item price testing after public scrutiny, though it has not disclosed how many users were affected or how long the program ran. The timing of Instacart’s retreat and Maryland’s legislative push suggests that both regulatory pressure and consumer backlash played a role in forcing the issue.
For shoppers, the practical connection is direct: if a delivery app or grocery chain can no longer quietly test how much each individual is willing to pay, the risk of being singled out for higher prices falls. Instead, price differences will need to be grounded in more traditional factors such as store location, posted sales, or clearly disclosed membership tiers. That does not mean all forms of dynamic pricing will disappear, but it does narrow the scope for algorithms that treat each person as a separate market.
The broader policy debate is just beginning. Supporters of HB 895 argue that grocery staples are essential goods, and that allowing hidden, data-driven markups on basics like milk, bread, and produce undermines public trust. They frame the law as a consumer rights measure that restores a simple expectation: two people standing in the same aisle, or using the same app, should see the same shelf price for the same product.
Industry advocates, by contrast, warn that restricting the use of data could limit retailers’ ability to experiment with promotions or tailor offers to budget-conscious shoppers. Some analysts also caution that companies might respond by raising baseline prices to offset the loss of higher-margin individualized sales, though there is no public evidence yet that this is happening in Maryland.
What is clear is that Maryland has drawn a bright line that other states and federal regulators will be watching. If enforcement actions reveal widespread use of surveillance-driven grocery pricing, or if consumers report clearer and more predictable bills, HB 895 could become a template for similar laws elsewhere. If not, the measure may still stand as an early attempt to put guardrails around algorithms before they become an invisible but routine part of buying food.
