
Personalized prices sure sound like a bad idea
If you do find yourself shopping for a flight, a pair of underwear, or even a concert ticket, and you want to be treated like a stranger, make yourself a stranger online. Getty Images
During Amazon's semi-annual Prime Day bonanza, the underwear I usually buy were on deep discount at a price so low I assumed it was just for me, the frequent shopper. I got three packs and felt good about it. But a few days ago, when I saw the news that Delta was using AI to personalize its flight prices, I got mad. I started to suspect that something sinister was behind my great deal on drawers at Amazon. Was that sale just for me? Where else have I been paying personalized prices?
Delta CEO Glen Hauenstein actually announced last year that the airline was using AI to do 'a full reengineering of how we price and how we will be pricing in the future' at its annual Investor Day event. He promised, somewhat ominously, that airfares would be determined 'on that flight, on that time, to you, the individual.' Last week, Hauenstein ignited a furor telling investors that Delta was currently using the technology on 3 percent of flight prices and planned to boost that to 20 percent by the end of this year.
User Friendly
A weekly dispatch to make sure tech is working for you, instead of overwhelming you. From senior technology correspondent Adam Clark Estes. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Welcome to the era of hyper-personalized pricing. Companies are increasingly deploying AI-powered technology that is capable of identifying thousands of different real-time signals — everything from your location and loyalty status to your device and search history — to sell the same product to two different people for two different prices. This represents an advanced form of dynamic pricing, the age-old practice of adjusting prices based on market conditions. With the help of algorithms and reams of data, some businesses are taking a new, personalized approach: surveillance pricing. Dynamic pricing is perfectly legal, but surveillance pricing and the accompanying privacy concerns are new.
Suffice to say, consumers don't like the idea of companies using AI to set prices. On Wednesday, Democratic Rep. Greg Casar announced plans to introduce a bill that would ban surveillance pricing at a federal level. Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego accused Delta of 'using AI to find your pain point — meaning they'll squeeze you for every penny' and sent the company an angry letter, which was cosigned by Sens. Mark Warner of Virginia and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. And earlier this month, New York enacted a law that requires sellers to disclose when personalized algorithmic pricing is in effect, with similar legislation under consideration in other states.
Consumers don't like the idea of companies using AI to set prices.
When I asked George Slover, general counsel of the Center for Democracy and Technology, about pricing models like this, he said, 'This is a different animal than what the airlines have been doing in the past, and it is more personalized and more intrusive.'
Delta denies anything untoward is happening here. The company said in a statement, 'There is no fare product Delta has ever used, is testing, or plans to use that targets customers with individualized offers based on personal information' and that fares are 'based solely on trip-related factors like advance purchase and cabin class.' In other words, according to the company, AI helps Delta set prices using metrics the airline already uses to determine airfares. Amazon, too, says it doesn't use surveillance pricing after a botched experiment 25 years ago.
Still, surveillance pricing is already a documented phenomenon. Kroger offers different discounts to different customers based on personal data, according to a Consumer Reports investigation published in May. Target settled a lawsuit and paid $5 million in fines after a local KARE 11 news investigation in Minneapolis found that prices in the Target app changed when customers entered the perimeter of a store. And a ProPublica investigation revealed that the Princeton Review charged Asian families higher prices for college prep services.
'It is a more sophisticated and algorithmically driven and selective price gouging,' Slover said of surveillance pricing, which he calls bespoke pricing. 'You are focusing on one particular individual based on their vulnerability and susceptibility.
If you're wondering who to blame for this trend for this era of computer-optimized price schemes, the answer is surprisingly obvious: It's airlines. Well, and Jimmy Carter.
Airline prices have always been a black box
The era of dynamic pricing as we know it started in 1966, when American Airlines launched its Semi-Automated Business Research Environment, or SABRE. This computerized reservations system became the company's nerve center, where data about every reservation and cancellation was kept.
After President Carter signed the Airline Deregulation Act into law in 1978, which allowed airlines to set their own prices, American Airlines leveraged the data they collected through SABRE to maximize profits. The company even created a new system called DINAMO to do so, and within a few years, dynamic pricing became industry standard. American Airlines led the way, launching its Super Saver fares and helping drive down the price of flights for leisure travelers while business travelers footed the bill for the discounts. However, it wasn't always clear why some seats were cheaper than others. This is still the black box approach to airfare pricing we're living with today.
Related How airlines squeeze you for every penny
Airfares can vary widely based on a number of factors, from the number of discounts the airline releases to when the passenger books the flight. The person you're sitting next to on any given flight could have paid twice as much as you — or half as much. It's getting harder to figure out how to game the system, too, as computers have improved and algorithms have gotten more sophisticated. And now there's AI.
Does this mean Delta will know when you're flying to a funeral on short notice and charge you full fare, because it knows you'll pay it? Probably not, according to Laurie Garrow, a professor of aviation at George Tech.
'The characteristics that they're looking at to do this discounting are characteristics about your trip — how far I'm booking in advance, what market, how many people are traveling together, historic purchase patterns in the aggregate — that's what's being fed to the AI,' Garrow said. 'It's not things that are being hypothesized, like, 'Am I going to a funeral?''
In other words, what Delta knows about is based on the data you've given it, especially when shopping for flights.
It turns out that what's happening with Amazon prices is a little less nefarious. The company uses dynamic pricing with the help of algorithms — it constantly changes prices based on supply and demand — but Amazon says it doesn't do personalized or surveillance pricing. So that super low price on boxer briefs wasn't just for me. Amazon reportedly changes its prices up to 2.5 million times a day, or about once every 10 minutes, but those fluctuations show up for all customers.
'Algorithmic pricing exploits a vast asymmetry of information,' said Elise Phillips, policy counsel at Public Knowledge. 'Given that there is often little transparency in how these algorithms function, it's fundamentally unfair to consumers.'
What you can do to avoid the algorithm's gaze
It may feel impossible to escape the reach of dynamic pricing both online and off. Again, it's not just airlines and Amazon doing it.
Ticketmaster, which is infamous for dynamic pricing, and its parent company Live Nation are being sued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for illegally operating a monopoly. (So is Amazon.) Kroger is being scrutinized not only for its personalized discounts but also its new electronic shelf labels, which change the prices of groceries for arbitrary reasons. Uber has normalized surge pricing, and is now finding new ways to overcharge customers.
If you do find yourself shopping for a flight, a pair of underwear, or even a concert ticket, and you want to be treated like a stranger, make yourself a stranger online.
You can avoid spending money with companies who use dynamic prices, if there's a good alternative. (For air travel, unfortunately, that's nearly impossible because most airlines use a form of dynamic pricing.) Nevertheless, if you do find yourself shopping for a flight, a pair of underwear, or even a concert ticket, and you want to be treated like a stranger, make yourself a stranger online.
You can do this several different ways. Use a VPN when you shop online. And then try it using incognito mode in Chrome or a private browser window in Safari to keep data out of the algorithms' hands. You could even use a privacy-focused browser, like Duck Duck Go, to avoid even more trackers. Heck, try all three approaches and see if the prices change. It is theoretically possible that surrendering your personal data could lead to lower prices. That doesn't make it right, though.
'Just because the technology exists, we don't just have to let companies do what's most profitable for them,' Brian Callaci, chief economist at the Open Markets Institute, told me. 'You know, the whole point of capitalism should be working for us and not the other way around.'
A version of this story was also published in the User Friendly newsletter. Sign up here so you don't miss the next one!
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Stablecoins Are on the Rise. 3 Reasons Investors Should Pay Attention to This Popular Cryptocurrency.
Key Points New crypto legislation in Congress has paved the way for rapid expansion of the stablecoin industry. In addition to financial services firms, companies in industries ranging from retail to tech could launch new stablecoins. Stablecoins have the potential to disrupt existing industries and change the way investors value companies. 10 stocks we like better than Circle Internet Group › Passage of landmark new crypto legislation (the Genius Act) has led to a surge of positive sentiment about stablecoins. Some investors now think they have the potential to disrupt entire industries. Although some of this hype and buzz may be overblown, investors still need to pay attention. Here are three key ways that stablecoins could influence your investment strategy. 1. Impact on the business models of top companies Stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies pegged 1:1 to a fiat currency such as the U.S. dollar, have the potential to affect the business models of companies that have nothing to do with crypto or blockchain. Take retail, for example. A handful of top retailers -- including Amazon and Walmart -- are now exploring stablecoins as a way of cutting down on credit card processing fees. At some point in the not-so-distant future, you might be paying for your online purchases with stablecoins, rather than credit cards. Or what about the financial services industry? Visa is a prime candidate for disruption, so it is already taking steps to prepare for the stablecoin era. And Western Union is also preparing for the day when customers use stablecoins rather than dollars to send cross-border remittances. So get ready to hear a lot about stablecoins on analyst calls and at investor conferences. After asking questions about the impact of artificial intelligence (AI), investors and analysts might start to ask about the impact of stablecoins. At the very least, investors need to understand how stablecoins might change or disrupt existing business models. 2. New stablecoin launches Also, get ready for a deluge of new stablecoin launches from some unlikely names. And it won't just be banks or financial institutions issuing them. Under the Genius Act, even nonbanks will be able to issue them. And that could really open the floodgates. Right now, Tether (CRYPTO: USDT) and USDC (CRYPTO: USDC), the stablecoin issued by Circle Internet Group (NYSE: CRCL), account for a whopping 90% of the $250 billion stablecoin industry. According to the latest Motley Fool stablecoin research, Tether and Circle are smaller than the biggest national banks, but larger than typical midsized brokerages. So, they're definitely, a force to be reckoned with. Right now, I'm partial to USDC, because it's the unofficial stablecoin of Coinbase Global (NASDAQ: COIN), which has a partnership agreement with Circle. I also am confident that it will never lose its peg to the U.S. dollar. I wouldn't have as much confidence in smaller stablecoins without such a proven track record or as many key partners. It's easy to see how this industry will become a lot more fragmented very soon, making it potentially even more confusing for the average investor. In June, Fortune reported that Apple, Airbnb, X, and Alphabet were exploring stablecoin launches. So, if you're an Apple fan, you might want to own an Apple stablecoin. The same is true if you're an Elon Musk fan -- wouldn't you want to own a cool new X stablecoin? 3. Ethereum Finally, there's the matter of which blockchain will emerge as the dominant platform for stablecoins. Presumably, investors will flock to blockchains that are seeing the most success with stablecoins. That's because stablecoins are key building blocks for everything that happens in blockchain finance. So the most popular blockchains for stablecoins should also get the highest valuations. Currently, Ethereum (CRYPTO: ETH) is getting a lot of buzz because it accounts for 49% of the stablecoin market. According to investment strategist Tom Lee of Fundstrat, stablecoins are going to create a "ChatGPT moment" for Ethereum, with the potential to really light a fire under its price. With that in mind, it's easy to see why high-profile investors such as Peter Thiel are now starting to increase their exposure to Ethereum as a way of investing in stablecoins. But Ethereum hardly has a monopoly on stablecoins. All Layer-1 blockchains, if they can support smart contracts, should also be able to support stablecoins. And that creates the opportunity for relatively unknown names to really pop. According to CoinGecko, Tron (CRYPTO: TRX) has a 34.1% share of the stablecoin market. By way of comparison, Solana (CRYPTO: SOL) only has a measly 2.2% share. If you think that stablecoins are the future, then Solana (with a $100 billion valuation), might be way overvalued compared to Tron, which has a $30 billion valuation. What's the best way to play the stablecoin trend? It's obvious that there are a number of different ways to play the stablecoin trend. The easiest way is to invest in the issuers of stablecoins, such as Circle. That gives you maximum exposure to any potential upside. You could also invest in blockchains such as Ethereum that are dominant in stablecoins, with the expectation that their values are going to soar. By the end of 2025, investing in stablecoins could get very interesting. What if a popular company like Amazon, Apple, or Alphabet decides to launch a stablecoin? It might fundamentally alter the way investors view these companies. That's why, even if you've never paid attention to stablecoins before, you should now. Very soon, they're going to become impossible to ignore. Should you invest $1,000 in Circle Internet Group right now? Before you buy stock in Circle Internet Group, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Circle Internet Group wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $636,774!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,064,942!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,040% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025 Dominic Basulto has positions in Amazon, Circle Internet Group, Ethereum, Solana, and USDC. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Airbnb, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Ethereum, Solana, Visa, and Walmart. The Motley Fool recommends Coinbase Global. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Stablecoins Are on the Rise. 3 Reasons Investors Should Pay Attention to This Popular Cryptocurrency. was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Here are 3 ways to think about Nvidia stock
Fortunes have been made by many, thanks to investing in chip giant Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA). Nvidia stock has soared 1,576% over the past five years. It is now the most valuable listed company in the world. I continue to weigh my options when it comes to investing. I would be happy to own Nvidia stock in my portfolio — but I am not willing to pay the current price. In making my decisions, I have been trying to think about the share from different perspectives. Here are three of them. Like Amazon before the dotcom crash Artificial intelligence (AI) has some signs of being a stock market bubble. If that bubble bursts, for example because computing power progress means future chip demand is much less than expected, it would likely have a big impact on Nvidia. That helps explain why I am nervous about buying at the current Nvidia stock price. If it falls down I would then be nursing a paper loss, perhaps a sizeable one. Then again, Amazon fell 94% between the dotcom boom of November 1999 and September 2001. Still, since then it has gone up 76,600%. As a long-term investor, I do not mind sitting on a paper loss (even a sizeable one) if I continue to believe in the long-term investment case for a share. But while Amazon in 1999 could be an interesting comparison for Nvidia stock today, there is no guarantee latter would bounce back the way the former did. Amazon's market grew significantly. The market for AI chips may keep growing fast – but it could also be that after initial installations are complete, demand falls. A bubble waiting to burst? That leads me onto another potential way to view Nvidia stock: as a massive bubble waiting to burst. After all, the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio is 56. That is higher than I would be willing to pay, though large tech stocks often do command high P/E ratios. But earnings have exploded at Nvidia in recent years. Last year's basic earnings per share of $2.97 were far more than double the prior year's $1.21 – and around 25 times higher than just five years previously. If the surging demand for AI chips turns out to be a blip rather than a long-term trend, Nvidia's eanings could come crashing back to earth. In such a scenario, even if Nvidia remained solidly profitable, its stock price may move far below where it currently stands. This is the risk that most puts me off investing at the current share price. Success story set to grow A third scenario could be that Nvidia might be like Microsoft or Apple at multiple points in their history – massively successful yet set to grow further, boosting an already costly-looking share price. Apple stock is up 131% in the past five years. But five years ago, Apple was already massively successful and one of the biggest companies on the market. Nvidia's proprietary technology, large customer base and proven business model have brought it a long way in a few years. Maybe it can do the same again over the next few years. The post Here are 3 ways to think about Nvidia stock appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool C Ruane has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Tech companies building massive AI data centers should pay to power them
The projected growth in artificial intelligence and its unprecedented demand for electricity to power enormous data centers present a serious challenge to the financial and technical capacity of the U.S. utility system. Appreciation for the sheer magnitude of that challenge has gotten lost as forecast after forecast projects massive growth in electric demand over the coming decade. The idea of building a data center that will draw 1 gigawatt of power or more, an amount sufficient to serve over 875,000 homes, is in the plans of so many data center developers and so routinely discussed that it no longer seems extraordinary. The challenge, when viewed in the aggregate, may be overwhelming. A recent Wood Mackenzie report identified 64 gigawatts of confirmed data center related power projects currently on the books with another 132 gigawatts potentially to be developed. 64 gigawatts are enough to power 56 million homes — more than twice the population of the 15 largest cities in America. The U.S. electric utility system is struggling to meet the projected energy needs of the AI industry. The problem is that many utilities do not have the financial and organizational resources to build new generating and transmission facilities at the scale and on the data center developers' desired timeline. The public policy question now on the table is who should pay for and bear the risk for these massive mega-energy projects. Will it be the AI developers such as Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and Alphabet — whose combined market value is seven times that of the entire S&P 500 Utility Sector — or the residential and other customers of local electric utilities? The process to answer this and related questions is underway in the hallways of the U.S. Congress, at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other federal agencies, in tariff proceedings before state regulatory authorities and in public debate at the national, state and local levels. Whether they are developed at the federal, state or local level, the following values and objectives should form the core of public policy in this area: Data centers developers that require massive amounts of electric power (e.g. above 500MW or another specified level) should be required to pay for building new generating and transmission facilities. The State of Texas recently enacted legislation that requires data centers and other new large users to fund the infrastructure necessary to serve their needs. Although it is customary to spread the cost of new facilities across the user base of a utility, the demands that data center developers are placing on utility systems across the country are sufficiently extraordinary to justify allocating the costs of new facilities to those developers. Moreover, data center developers have the financial resources to cover those costs and incorporate them into the rates charged to users of their AI services. The developers of large data centers should bear the risk associated with new utility-built generating and transmission facilities, not the utility. As an example of such a policy, the Public Utility Commission of Ohio just approved a compromise proposed by American Electric Power of Ohio that would require data centers with loads greater than 1 gigawatt and mobile data centers over 25 megawatts to commit to 10-year electric service contracts and pay minimum demand charges based on 85 percent of their contract capacity, up from 60 percent under the utility's current general service tariff. Another option included in the Texas legislation requires significant up-front payments early in the planning process and mandates that data center developers disclose where they may have simultaneously placed demands for power. It is not unusual for data center requests for service to be withdrawn once they decide on the best location and package of incentives. Data center developers have the financial capacity and ability to manage this risk, utilities do not. Generating facilities that are co-located at large data centers should be integrated with the local utility electric grid, with appropriate cost allocation. Although a few projects have examined the option of a co-located power generation 'island' fully independent of the grid, most projects intend to interconnect with the grid system for back-up power and related purposes. Properly managed, this interconnection could be advantageous for both the data center and the utility system, provided that costs are appropriately allocated across the system. The U.S. government should continue to support the development of nuclear technology, including small modular reactors. U.S. utilities do not have the financial resources to assume the risk of building new nuclear-powered generating facilities. The emergence of a new set of customers, data center developers with enormous needs for electric power and deep pockets, changes the equation. The U.S. government has provided billions of dollars of support for new nuclear technologies and should continue to do so for the purpose of bringing their costs down. The U.S. government should continue to support energy efficiency improvements at data centers. Data centers use massive amounts of power for running servers, cooling systems, storage systems, networking equipment, backup systems, security systems and lighting. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has developed a 'handbook' of measures that data centers can implement to reduce energy usage and achieve savings. In addition, there now are strong market forces to develop new super-efficient chips that will lower the unit costs of training and using AI models. The U.S. government should help accelerate the development of these chips given their leverage on U.S. electricity demand. The stakes in this public policy debate over our energy future could not be higher. If we get these policies right, AI has the potential to remake the U.S. economy and the energy infrastructure of this country. If we get it wrong, the push to build new generating and transmission facilities to provide gigawatts of power has the potential to overwhelm the financial and operational capacity our electric utility system, impose burdensome rate increases on homeowners and businesses, undercut efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels to meet climate-related goals and compromise the reliability of our electricity grid for years to come. David M. Klaus is a consultant on energy issues who served as deputy undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Energy during the Obama administration and as a political appointee to two other Democratic presidents. Mark MacCarthy is the author of 'Regulating Digital Industries' (Brookings, 2023), an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Communication, Culture & Technology Program, a nonresident senior fellow at the Institute for Technology Law and Policy at Georgetown Law and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.