Washington Post’s surveillance rates under fire from Democrats who want to ban the practice

Some Washington Post subscribers have been receiving emails informing them that their subscription rates will increase, according to the washingtonian. That part isn’t surprising, given the fact that Post owner Jeff Bezos is reportedly upset that the newspaper is losing money, especially since he laid off about half of his workforce. But some people who scrolled to the bottom of the email were surprised when they read how the new price was determined: “This price was set by an algorithm using your personal data.”

It’s a concept called surveillance pricing and it’s not entirely new. People can often be charged different prices for the same product, depending on a number of factors. If your phone’s battery is low, ride-sharing companies like Uber or Lyft might charge more because they know you’re desperate. Instacart was recently caught charging up to 23% more to some buyers based on unknown criteria.

Many Democrats are unhappy about this, including Rep. Greg Casar of Texas. On Monday, Casar wrote in blue sky that surveillance price fixing “should be illegal” and added: “I have a bill to ban it.”

Last year, Casar and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan introduced legislation called the Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act. And last month, two other Democrats in the Senate, Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, introduced very similar legislation called Arrest Price Grocery Store Looting Act of 2026.

The Washington Post has not explained how it determines prices using personal data. But there could be several factors, including zip code, estimated income, and purchase history. Bezos, the founder of Amazon, presumably has more data on what people buy than anyone else in the country. And he is a big proponent of using AI to maximize profits.

The problem is that AI can’t really compensate for the losses a company may suffer by offering a bad product. The newspaper suffered its first hemorrhage of subscribers: 250,000 in a week alone, after Bezos blocked the Washington Post editorial board from endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election against Donald Trump.

The Washington Post had no reporters at the Academy Awards on Sunday, according to the paper’s former journalist. cultural writer. And it was the last of the major media outlets to report that the United States had begun bombing Iran late last month. The newspaper has purged any writers from the side of opinion considered liberal and has instead become a mouthpiece for Bezos’s worldview, a worldview that aligns perfectly with that of the Trump regime.

Bezos has been criticized for buying the distribution rights to First Lady Melania Trump’s “documentary” Melania for a whopping $40 million, but the movie itself helps explain why you’d bother. There are several shots of the Trumps with Big Tech oligarchs like Elon Musk, Tim Cook and Bezos himself. All of these guys need something from Trump, whether it’s space contracts or just tariff relief.

News about what Bezos has in store for the future of his newspaper does not instill confidence that it can survive much longer as a respected institution. The Washington Post’s news section still publishes important stories, but the New York Times reports that Bezos’ big idea was to cut the newsroom budget in half and demand double productivity through AI. Columnist Dana Milbank and economics correspondent Jeff Stein Both announced they were leaving the Post on Monday.

Companies are increasingly turning to algorithms to set their prices, and it doesn’t look like that will change anytime soon unless lawmakers get involved. At least one dozen states are considering surveillance pricing legislation, but so far, only New York has passed a law in this area. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have much teeth, as it only requires companies to notify consumers when a price has been set with AI.

On the other hand, New York law may be the only reason we know the Washington Post is using AI for subscription fees. The newspaper has little incentive to include the disclaimer: “This price was set by an algorithm using your personal data.” Notifying consumers may not solve the price surveillance problem, but at least people can take it into account when deciding where they want to spend their money.