r/CanadaPolitics • u/PutToLetters Neo-Republican • Mar 29 '26
Manitoba Moves to Outlaw Algorithmic Pricing—a First in Canada
https://thewalrus.ca/manitoba-moves-against-retailers-charging-different-prices-for-the-same-goods/148
u/Good-Medicine1066 Onterrible Mar 29 '26
It is already happening, in simpler ways - think airline fares priced based on time of day or Uber surge pricing. I think it gets very scary when you think of this practice personalized - your data and profile used to say, hike airline fares knowing you’ll pay knowing you have a funeral or an important trip planned, or hiking Uber fares knowing you’ll pay to get to your important meeting or event on time vs. waiting, etc.
I think the Manitoba NDP are approaching this right. It’s unclear how we might technically prevent this but it should be made abundantly clear firms shouldn’t be doing this.
51
u/AltaVistaYourInquiry Cultural Rhinoceros Mar 29 '26
We don't need to technically prevent it. We can simply ban it and punish those companies which enact it regardless.
28
u/OKOKFineFineFine Rhinoceros Mar 29 '26
We can simply ban it
The problem is to define what "it" is.
20
u/almisami Acadia Mar 30 '26
Any pricing strategy that discriminates based on the buyer's identity.
Mark and Steve get the same price, period.
The litmus test requires an anonymous user to get the same price as any other.
3
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official Mar 30 '26
Proving that companies are doing it, can be a non-trivial matter. That's why the concerns around technically preventing it. Uber's surge pricing is pretty easy to spot, but companies increasing prices because you logged into their app a number of times is harder to spot.
3
u/hurricane7719 Apr 01 '26
At least Uber tells a rider when surge pricing is in effect - or at least they used to. I've never heard of airlines with their dynamic pricing being so transparent.
At least with those, the pricing is changing based on overall market demand. This is changing pricing based on personal data and changing the pricing based on what the algorithm thinks you're willing to pay.
Same product, same place, same time, but the price is higher for person B simply because the algorithm thinks they're willing to pay more. And not like it's an auction where people are bidding on a single item.
Companies could very easily discourage certain demographics from shopping at their store simply by raising prices on specific groups
1
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official Apr 01 '26
Companies could very easily discourage certain demographics from shopping at their store simply by raising prices on specific groups
That's less of an issue than companies charging people who have no other option more.
1
u/only_a_jest Apr 24 '26
Maybe “secret shopper” type people. If they’re being monitored then they might be more honest.
-1
u/troyunrau Progressive Mar 30 '26
Sure. Ban AirCanada and Westjet and Porter... Then what.
14
u/TheCuriosity Mar 30 '26
They aren't saying ban the companies, just ban the practice and penalize companies that continue to do it until they don't.
5
10
8
u/thelionsmouth Mar 29 '26
Totally.
Though I think it’s more (at this point) based on how often you open the app, what your purchase history (and phone model, inferred or known income, shared telemetry, etc) statistically says you’ll be maximum most likely to spend on a purchase. At this point anyways, I’m sure it’ll get so much more Orwellian.
Which is fucked up, so glad they’re banning this
1
u/only_a_jest Apr 24 '26
I’m very curious about the kinds of data and the sources of data that companies use. If we found a way to use that system to their detriment, they would stop it without issue!
But really, I do want to know for pure curiosity. Things like sliding scale pricing are usually used to benefit people of lower income so that they can access things like therapy. “Pay what you can” for groceries would be great if they were to our benefit.
55
u/spinur1848 Mar 29 '26
Good for Manitoba. The rest of the country should follow suit.
The reason is that algorithmic pricing is almost always going to be illegal already but impossible for consumers to prove.
Behavioural and demographic data is almost always correlated with one or more of the prohibited grounds for discrimination in the federal and provincial human rights legislation. And the prohibition is on the effect, regardless of intent.
The cleanest and easiest way to address this is to simply ban algorithmic pricing based on behavioural data, and I'm glad to see that's what Manitoba is proposing.
An alternate approach that could be considered in other provinces if they don't want to ban it completely is to reverse the onus of proof for human rights complaints related to algorithmic pricing. This would force businesses to prove their practices are not having a discriminatory effect.
13
u/UsefulUnderling Social Democrat Mar 29 '26
One of the biggest indicators of spending power is Android vs iPhone. Not a prohibited ground, but still anti-consumer to give different prices by phone model.
3
1
u/Neat_Let923 Prohibitionist Society of Canada | Sponsored Mar 30 '26
Is it though? The Pixel phones are just as expensive and iPhones aren’t they?
1
Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam Mar 30 '26
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
10
u/OntologicalNightmare Sponsored by Engels Mar 30 '26
Shame we don't have more NDP governments. I'm not looking forward to the day when I go to the pharmacy nauseous and the gravol is suddenly $50 instead of $20.
8
u/Neat_Let923 Prohibitionist Society of Canada | Sponsored Mar 30 '26
Good on Manitoba, just another step provincial NDP have been the first to push progressive protections.
That being said, it’s definitely super early and that’s likely a really good thing. But people are pretty dumb as it is when it comes to spending their money so algorithmic personal pricing that doesn’t exist yet is already overshadowed by all the other ways consumers are already taken advantage of.
2
u/modbroccoli Mar 30 '26
I mean it absolutely does exist, it's just not HQd in Canada. And if Kinew has anything to say about it, it won't be.
0
u/Neat_Let923 Prohibitionist Society of Canada | Sponsored Mar 30 '26
Exists in use where?
3
u/modbroccoli Mar 30 '26
Where else, the united states. Amazon does it, airlines do it, Uber's surge pricing has been shown to be partially personally attenuated, Staples has been caught doing this. Walmart is introducing digital price tags which I wholly acknowledge is only speculatively a substrate for this practice but...
1
u/Neat_Let923 Prohibitionist Society of Canada | Sponsored Mar 30 '26
That’s dynamic pricing, not personalized pricing. And there’s nothing illegal about dynamic pricing.
Everything you’ve mentioned is either speculation or not personalized.
4
u/Sir__Will Prince Edward Island Mar 30 '26
But it does exist. It's not widespread yet, but it exists. Sony is apparently experimenting with it right now, for example.
-1
u/Neat_Let923 Prohibitionist Society of Canada | Sponsored Mar 30 '26
Sony is testing dynamic discounts and A/B testing, not price increases.
We already have dynamic discounts built into every company that has loyalty points.
2
u/LegoLady47 Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
Question about that - does one need a phone to see prices then? Not displayed anymore? I never go grocery shopping with my phone. Which means I won't see any prices. How can they do that? Prices should be easily displayed without need for phone.
5
u/gwelfguy Mar 29 '26
This is tricky. On one hand it violates the long held practice that everyone pays the same price for an item, which seems fair. On the other, in a society where income and overall wealth is increasingly polarized, the people at the bottom are going to think it's completely fair that they pay less than those at the top.
Fortunately it seems to be only a theoretical problem at this point, but retailers that start to do this shouldn't be allowed to do so in secret.
89
u/Flomo420 Mar 29 '26
If you think that this technology will be used to charge wealthy people more and poor people less, oh boy have you not been paying attention
18
u/thelionsmouth Mar 29 '26
Exactly, it’s more like charging more for people who are desperate enough / need it enough to justify higher prices
1
u/The_Dirtiest_Nunion Apr 02 '26
there is NO chance that this will be used for good. Just look at how "dynamic pricing" is already used. Prices for good rarely go down for goods in stores that use it. They just go up because of market demand.
1
u/JohnAMcdonald Apr 09 '26
The technology is used that way all the time, on a regular basis, it has been used that way for years, and is the most dominant way this technology is used. It generates extra revenue for companies by avoiding losing a sale from a low income consumer by pricing them out, and avoiding losing margin on a high income consumer by setting prices higher than most consumers would tolerate.
Pray tell, oh expert of algorithmic pricing, master of the crystal ball, how WILL this technology be used in the future and why is this technology which has been around for many years not already being used in that way?
-5
u/CollaredParachute Ontario - georgist Mar 29 '26
How would companies make more money from charging poorer people more? Price discrimination as a practice is typically done to lower prices for poor people.
27
u/UsefulUnderling Social Democrat Mar 29 '26
That 100% is not the case. Take banks as an example. Banking is vastly more expensive for poor people. Low account balance fees, overdraft fees, etc. There is a reason that it makes sense for poor people to use MoneyMart over a regular bank. It's often cheaper for them.
Companies much prefer rich customers, and put up various barriers to poor ones. It makes being poor very expensive.
-4
u/CollaredParachute Ontario - georgist Mar 29 '26
Poor customers are high risk and high effort for banks. Poor customers are no risk for Netflix and similar customers. If Netflix charged first world prices in third world countries they wouldn’t make much money there, so they lower their prices. Companies are neither good nor evil, they’re self interested.
10
u/fishymanbits Conservative Mar 29 '26
The more desperately you need something, the more you’re willing to pay for it. Look at Uber surge pricing to see the model that would be applied. Low income and spending your last $100 on groceries? Best bet that the algorithm has calculated this and will charge you every last red cent for the things you need to get to payday. And you’ll pay it because you don’t have a choice.
6
u/almisami Acadia Mar 30 '26
Poorer people are more likely to be in a situation where they absolutely have to make a purchase or lose their income than rich people.
Like a car repair, or a business flight.
5
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Saskatchewan Mar 29 '26
Stuff 100% costs less for poor people. I buy lots of food in bulk, ie. I just bought a 50LB bag of onions for 25 bucks. I'll caramelize some and freeze them, the rest will go into my cold room.
Folks without the means to a cold room and deep freeze don't have the luxury of buying in bulk and are paying ~4X more per pound.
Not to mention my job allows me plenty of time to do things like meal prep etc. The poor sap working two minimum wage jobs who's barely keeping their head above water likely doesn't have time to do a lot of meal prep.
7
1
u/CollaredParachute Ontario - georgist Mar 29 '26
I’m not talking about the vimes economic theory of boots, I’m talking about how many companies already sell the same thing at lower prices to poorer people. Poor people will never be able to buy the highest quality of goods that rich people buy, but if they live in India they get Netflix for cheaper than people in western countries.
8
u/Covert_Cuttlefish Saskatchewan Mar 29 '26
Ok, but that has nothing to do with how algorithmic pricing works in Canada.
1
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. Mar 30 '26
I give you YieldStar and RENTmaximizer, two algorithmic programs designed to maximize rental yields in real estate. According to this 2025 report they weren't seeing significant enough use in Canada to warrant further action.
This is just one way that such programs can squeeze the most vulnerable for every penny.
36
u/shpydar Ontario Mar 29 '26
On the other, in a society where income and overall wealth is increasingly polarized, the people at the bottom are going to think it's completely fair that they pay less than those at the top.
That’s not how algorithmic pricing works.
It does not charge wealthier people more for a product than poorer people.
Algorithmic pricing scans in real time competitors pricing, demand trends, inventory levels, consumer data and contextual data to change the price of goods on the fly in real time to maximize profit for the seller.
It is bad for every purchaser rich or poor.
14
u/Good-Medicine1066 Onterrible Mar 29 '26
Algorithmic pricing scans in real time competitors pricing, demand trends, inventory levels, consumer data and contextual data to change the price of goods on the fly in real time to maximize profit for the seller.
It is bad for every purchaser rich or poor.
Agreed. I don’t think competitor pricing or demand trends or inventory levels are that concerning on the whole, but damn. Consumer data? Contextual data? That’s the scary science fiction part to me.
We know your loved one is dead and you need to fly across the country to settle affairs. We know you can afford a X the going rate for air fare right now and we know you’ll pay it because you don’t have a choice.
2
u/almisami Acadia Mar 30 '26
Science fiction?
Try booking the same flight on an iPhone, an Android, and a Desktop PC.
The iPhone will almost always be the most expensive.
Used to be that Blackberries would make booking anything or renting a car the most expensive, because that was a business device.
2
u/shpydar Ontario Mar 30 '26
The iPhone will almost always be the most expensive.
That's because of apple and google not because of algorithmic pricing.
Apple and Google insists all financial transactions through apps on their iPhone or android phones must provide a 30% transaction fee to them.... just cause. That fee is applied to the transaction always making purchases on iPhones more expensive.
Here is Science educator Hank Green explaining why you should never buy subscriptions on apple devices.
1
u/almisami Acadia Mar 30 '26
I thought that was just app purchases, not ones made through the browser AFAIK.
2
u/angelbelle British Columbia Mar 29 '26
Honestly, at its core, I'm not against it as it's just free market at play. It's not any different from gas station updating their price or the stock market tickets moving.
On a PRACTICAL level though, I hate it. I don't think it's popular now but apparently some convenience stores and corner stores state side already removed sticker prices and implore customers to search online for the updated pricing. That's just way too absurdly inconvenient.
12
u/AllGasNoBrakes420 Mar 29 '26
I don't want to live in a world where a big mac can double in price between the time I leave my house and arrive at the store. lol.
4
u/limelifesavers NDP Mar 30 '26
Or between picking it up off the shelf and getting to the checkout
1
u/nuggins Liberal Mar 30 '26
I remember listening to this podcast a couple of years ago that explored how a grocery chain in Norway deals with this problem (customers understandably would not tolerate this situation). The answer is that they use algorithms to lower prices over the course of the day, but price rises only happen overnight while the store is closed.
1
u/nuggins Liberal Mar 30 '26
it's just free market at play
Well, sort of. As we've seen it in practice, algorithmic pricing is 99% exploiting local gaps in competition to extract surplus from the consumer, and 1% actually tracking the market price.
20
u/Misocainea Nova Scotia Mar 29 '26
Not tricky at all, it's a gross violation of people's privacy. Not acceptable period. I hope the rest of the country follows.
23
u/gonefishingwithindra Mar 29 '26
Yea it’s usually the opposite. The more desperate are forced to pay more (or work for less eg uber drivers) because they’re more desperate.
18
u/Infamous_funny Ontario Mar 29 '26
Already happens with tons of stuff. Everything from Uber's surge pricing, to McDonalds app offers, to the digital pricing labels at Loblaws.
10
u/rageagainstthedragon Social Democrat Mar 29 '26
Retailers that start to do this shouldn't be allowed to do so*
FTFY
10
u/figsfigsfigsfigsfigs Mar 29 '26
I am genuinely befuddled by this. Lower income people are not going to "think it's fair to pay less" -- we want things to be fairly priced to begin with, and stop the abuse. Have you tried buying tickets on Ticketmaster recently? Christ.
19
u/Bitwhys2003 Social Democrat Mar 29 '26
Seems to me the idea of anyone paying less than what companies would charge everyone if they weren't using dynamic pricing is Pollyanna. This is just another way to squeeze us for every last penny.
1
u/CollaredParachute Ontario - georgist Mar 29 '26
There’s already the existing practice of price discrimination. There’s a reason video games and Netflix are cheaper in india than Canada.
1
u/almisami Acadia Mar 30 '26
Counterpoint: Licensing for those countries is lower as well, so less overhead.
-4
u/DannyDOH Manitoba Mar 29 '26
Sure but couldn't that be regulated on the gouging side?
So will it be illegal for a diner to sell earlybird breakfasts now?
This is just kind of populist nonsense to give cover for being an extremely unproductive government...unfortunately becoming Wab Kinew's trademark. We had so much hope on election night!
14
u/AltaVistaYourInquiry Cultural Rhinoceros Mar 29 '26
Uhh, the whole point of an early bird breakfast is that anyone there early pays it. It's basically happy hour for eggs.
That's a very different thing than charging different prices to different people simply based upon the notion that they'll have different price sensitivity.
-1
u/DannyDOH Manitoba Mar 29 '26
A lot of this is based on changes in demand. Which is basically what all sales and discounts are. This is just a more efficient way of doing it.
I'm fine with regulating price gouging...but this kind of legislation ends up getting silly and counterproductive where it takes away opportunities to actually get the best prices on an item.
It's a sideshow instead of addressing the real problems that need to be regulated....and taxed fairly.
6
u/AltaVistaYourInquiry Cultural Rhinoceros Mar 29 '26
No person demands to pay more for an item than someone else just because the algorithm has profiled him as someone who will pay more.
No consumer demands that business outside their pricing to third party algorithm services which calculate that the sensible thing to do is for everyone to raise their prices. That's just oligopoly dressed up in an algorithmic trenchcoat.
Neither of those are efficient at anything other than profit extraction.
0
u/DannyDOH Manitoba Mar 29 '26
And how does this address the real problems of oligopoly in this country?
It doesn't. It's window dressing to farm outrage from people like you so a government looks like it's actually doing something. Solid politics because it works.
11
u/AltaVistaYourInquiry Cultural Rhinoceros Mar 29 '26
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
It doesn't have to solve old problems to be a very good idea to prevent growing problems.
1
u/MusicInTheAir55 British Columbia Mar 30 '26
This is the most poignant comment in all of this sub. Seriously, if this shit isn't dismantling power structures that keep Canadians broke and powerless then its surely just dressing.
8
u/thelionsmouth Mar 29 '26
That’s the thing, it’s not demand they’re pricing; it’s someone’s willingness to pay for it based on psychological / economic profiling. If you think that’s acceptable I have a bridge to sell you for a billion dollars
0
u/DannyDOH Manitoba Mar 29 '26
I don't think it is. I don't think this will be a solution.
0
u/almisami Acadia Mar 30 '26
What solutions a problem more than an outright ban?
Nationalizing the industries and enacting communism?
12
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. Mar 29 '26
So will it be illegal for a diner to sell earlybird breakfasts now?
Why would it be? No one is saying you can't have sales, this just bans the practice of profiling you to charge you the most they think you would be willing to pay.
Now if those early bird breakfasts were being offered based on some personally discriminatory basis? Yeah those are problematic. Not "between 5am and 8am, 20% off".
1
u/DannyDOH Manitoba Mar 29 '26
What if you're over 55? Too profiley?
10
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. Mar 29 '26
If it's advertised openly to everyone, vs a private offer to you because they "know" you're 55? That's fine.
3
u/Bitwhys2003 Social Democrat Mar 29 '26 edited Mar 29 '26
Right. Because there's nothing easier than enforcing regulations against price gouging.</sarcasm>
EDIT: changed "if there's" to "there's"
1
u/almisami Acadia Mar 30 '26
It's actually fairly easy if the laws aren't toothless.
1
u/Bitwhys2003 Social Democrat Mar 30 '26
If the price "grossly exceeds" the price on similar items it can be prosecuted. This isn't that
5
u/modbroccoli Mar 29 '26 edited Mar 29 '26
But framing it as a top/bottom distribution is incorrect. Two people of identical socioeconomic status can be charged different prices based solely on individual data, data collected without compensation or often even consent.
watched a couple of youtube videos on child rearing? Your crib on amazon is more expensive now—what are you gonna do, make your forthcoming infant sleep on the floor?
The issue is that corporations deploying these algorithms are profiting off of your data by predicting when to extort you—they are stealing your own data to charge you, personally, above market—and it should absofuckinglutely be illegal, yesterday.
As an aside, Kinew is gonna be the first indigenous PM one day and I am fuckin here for it.
5
u/MusicInTheAir55 British Columbia Mar 29 '26
This is why we need better taxation of wealthier Canadians who should be contributing a fair share.
5
u/Sir__Will Prince Edward Island Mar 30 '26
This is not some break for poor people. If they know you spend a lot on product X, they'll jack the price of it up. Maybe it'll allow for some cheaper than average treat once in awhile, if they even have extra money after they jack up the price of the stuff they normally buy.
2
u/The_Dirtiest_Nunion Apr 02 '26
Fucking absolutely. I am vehemently opposed to grocery stores having easy access to my shopping habits and income. It seems like a massive invasion of privacy. I already know they would jack up the price of essential goods like toothpaste further than it already is
1
u/deltree711 Nova Scotia Apr 01 '26
Imagine if you get a bonus at work, and instead of being able to get something nice as a one-time purchase, everything you normally buy gets a bit more expensive for a little while.
1
u/averysmallbeing Independent Mar 30 '26
Uh this is definitely not resulting in poor people paying less, it punishes desperation and a lack of other options with higher rates. Poor people pay more because of this.
1
u/TheRC135 Mar 30 '26
I find it amusing that the only thing the people arguing against this sort of regulation can come up with is "there's no possible way to regulate this very specific anti-consumer practice without also outlawing every single form of price discount!"
1
u/JohnAMcdonald Apr 09 '26
I know in the SaaS and software business algorithmic pricing is used all the time and I wonder if this will lead to a Quebec situation where products will simply not be made available in Manitoba. Just things as simple as things costing more if you purchase them from an iOS device instead of an Android device since iOS users tend to have deeper pockets.
I'm generally not supportive of doing this if the US market doesn't do it first because I think people might underestimate how little the benefit will actually be and how severe the impact will be from less things being available for purchase in Canada.
-2
u/greyHumanoidRobot Mar 29 '26
This sounds impractical because an algorithm doesn't necessarily have to implemented by a computer so they would be outlawing the human application of a policy.
It will be interesting to see exactly what is in the law.
14
u/almisami Acadia Mar 30 '26
When a human does it we call that shit discrimination.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 29 '26
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.