Study Ban on Algorithmic Grocery Pricing

Summary#

This motion asks City of Toronto staff to find ways the City could ban or regulate “surveillance pricing” (also called algorithmic personalized pricing) for groceries. It does not create a ban now. It directs staff to study options and report back in early 2027. The stated goal is to protect consumers and keep grocery prices fair.

• Main change: City Manager, City Solicitor, and the head of Municipal Licensing and Standards must identify legal tools to stop or regulate personalized pricing that raises grocery prices.
• Scope: Groceries sold in stores and groceries sold online and delivered within Toronto.
• Output: Staff must provide options for Council to consider.
• Timing: Report due to the new term of City Council in the first quarter of 2027.
• No immediate change to prices or business rules until Council considers and passes future measures.

What it means for you#

• Shoppers

  • No change right now to how grocery prices are set.
  • If Council later adopts a ban or rules, you could see clearer, uniform prices for groceries in Toronto. The details are not yet known.

• Grocery stores and online grocery platforms

  • No new rules or enforcement now.
  • You may face new City rules in the future about using personal data or algorithms to set individual prices, including for online orders delivered in Toronto.
  • You could be asked for input during the City’s review. It is unclear what data access or disclosures the City might require to enforce any future rules.

• City staff

  • Must research legal mechanisms under the City’s powers, and prepare options and advice for Council by early 2027.

• General public

  • This is a study-and-report step. Any ban or regulations would require a later Council decision.

Expenses#

The motion may increase administrative costs for research and reporting, but no estimate is provided.

• Staff time for legal analysis, policy research, and possible consultation.
• Potential future costs for enforcement or oversight are unknown and would depend on what Council chooses later.
• No new compliance costs for businesses at this stage.

Proponents' View#

• The motion appears intended to protect consumers from “surveillance pricing,” where personal data and algorithms are used to charge some people more for the same groceries.
• Supporters may argue this could improve price fairness and transparency for essential goods.
• The City should explore using its consumer protection powers rather than waiting for other governments.
• Including online sales and deliveries could close a loophole so the same rules apply whether you shop in person or online.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that it is unclear whether the City has the legal authority to regulate or ban pricing practices that rely on data and algorithms, which may overlap with provincial or federal areas (such as competition or privacy law).
• The motion does not define “surveillance pricing that increases prices,” so it may be hard to distinguish harmful practices from common tactics like discounts, time-limited sales, or loyalty programs.
• Enforcement could be difficult. Proving that an algorithm used personal data to raise a specific customer’s price may require technical expertise and access to business systems, raising practicality and privacy questions.
• A broad or unclear rule could unintentionally restrict legitimate promotions or personalized discounts, depending on how a future bylaw is written.
• The timeline means any consumer protections would not take effect until after Council receives and acts on the 2027 report.