And we're live at the Seattle City Council meeting, where the surveillance pricing ban is one of many items on a packed agenda! It's livestreamed at seattlechannel.org
seattlechannel.org
Seattle City Council votes on our Fair and Transparent Pricing Legislation to ban surveillance pricing tomorrow! Simply put, the price of your groceries should be based on the product, not based on who is buying it.
Here's the page with the bill text, along with proposed amendments. Councilmember Bob Kettle filed a bunch of amendments yesterday that would add loopholes and weaken protections. Boo! We'll see how they fare today. seattle.legistar.com
seattle.legistar.com
After a couple of presentations, Esther Handy from the Mayor's office is presenting the budget that was announced earlier today. Here's @mayor.seattle.gov's talk earlier today, kicking off what's likely to be an intense process. bsky.app
We are building a Seattle where stability is not the ceiling of our ambition, but the ground beneath it. No structural deficit through 2030, and: ambitious funding for shelter and community to create safety, stability, and affordability. Details below 👇 youtube.com
www.youtube.com
60 speakers are signed up for in-person comment, so we'll only get one minute each. Yikes, that's tough. And we're off! We'll have comments on a lot of issues, I'm only going to post about the ones related to surveillance pricing -- and might miss some, sorry about that! Katie supports the ordinance, thanks the sponsors, UFCW team. "This vote is a litmus test for which side you're on: workers or billionaires." Indeed. @amzn4climate.bsky.social supports the ordinance. "All of us following the bill knows it allows discounts and loyalty programs". Opposes amendments weakening the bill. John from Washington Retail Association (I think) sujpports amendments, including loss prevention (F) and A and C (which gut the protections of the bill) Somebody else from Washington Retail Assocation talks about how they plan to pass a weak bill at the state (amendment H says that would overrule the Seattle bill) Somebody from Chamber of Progress repeats industry talking points, opposes the bill, lobbies for Amendment A Julie from Washington Fair Trade Coalition urges opposing most of the amendments (except for B) and especially Kettle's amendments which would completely gut the protections. "The idea these companies are looking out for consumers ... give me a break." Somebody from Working Families Party supports the ordinance talks about the misleading texts. "Do we really beieve these companies are spending millions of dollars to give us lower prices?" Church Council of Greater Seattle supports the bill, opposes all weakening amendments -- especially CM Kettle's. Condemns greed of corporations. Pastor of a Baptist church agrees. "Everybody deserves to eat and eat well." Another pastor of a Baptist church in CM Kettle's districts also opposes amendments, "We know these corporations are looking for tiny little holes they can exploit." Great testimony!!!! Another speaker in support of the ordinance. "Nobody but big grocery companies thinks that surveillance and higher prices are a good thing. They want us to think surveillance is inevitable ... but it's not." Marcales (I think) of UAW 4121 (representing workers at UW) supports the ordinance without amendments. "For working Seattleites, every dollar matters." Grace from UAW 4121 also supports the ordinance without amendents. Notes that choices are even more limited for people with disabilities, and people reluying on public translit. "Imagine the algorithm learning that!" A software engineer testifies in favor of the ordinance. "Algorithmic price discrimination is a creepy intrusive practice", yeah really. Patrick from West Seattle supports the ordinance, please say *no* to any amendments that carve out surveillance technologies. Ties it to the surge in ICE kidnappings -- 23 in West Seattle just yesterday. Maya from @wapeoplesprivacy.bsky.social supports the ordinance, aks for a no vote on all of CM Kettle's amendments as well as F. Talks about the misleading texts. "Let us be clear!" Pass a clean bioll, and vote no on amendment F. Clinical pediatric dietitian talks about how hard grocery costs are hitting people. "People don't have aneough money to get food, they don't have enough moeny to get healthy food". Urges passing without CM Kettle's amendments. Dan, a QFC worker, sees the tech rolling out, sees working class customers especially seniors using the Kroger app to get discounts. "These companies are trying to take advantage of people's economic desparation to mine their data" Rowan supports ordinance with amendents. Surveillance pricing carries the risks of all AI, but it's specific purpose is predatory. "The city has an opportunity and responsibility to be a leader." I'm gonna miss the next few, sorry, I'm up soon ... I asked the council pass the Fair Pricing and Transparency Ordinance — and to reject amendments A, C, D, E, F, and G, and talked about the opportunity. After me, Tee from @acluwa.bsky.social highlights surveillance pricing's risks to privacy and the equity issues. Opposes CM Kettle's amendments. Queer Power Alliance asks to pass the ordinance without any amendments. "Every amendment except <not sure which one> significantly weakens the bill." Notes that 2sLGBTQA+ people already experience economic burdens. Lam from @seattletru.bsky.social asks the council to reject CM Kettle's amendments that will gut protections for consumers. Cites survey that 67% of families that prices are reducing their consumption. Also cites study that Kroger gets 35% of their profits from data sales. A retired attorney urges the council to pass what's before you. "Don't change it. Pass it!" Pastor Joe here with congregation and Sound Alliance. Talks aout how Kroger stopped supplying their food pantry. Urges support of the ordinance. Phil Lewis, a Pastor, on the rights commission. Support the ordinance without amendments. Talks about the impact of grocery price rises on Black and brown families Amy from Washington Tech Industry Association, opposes the ordinance. Members are concerned about the business climate in Seattle. Also repeats industry talking points, asks for amendment Asia brings an immigrant perspective "Food is a necessiity like a luxury", highlights risks of surveillance to immigrant. Kate (I think), who's been at UFCW 3000 fpr 20 years, talks about past times when Seattle has led -- industry claimed the sky will fill, it didn't. It feels like that today. "Industry asks you to wait for the future. I ask you to build it!" Now shifting to online ... Gabriel from GSBA repeats industry talking points, focusing on individualized discounts and small businesses issuing manufacturers' coupons (i.e. lobbying for amendments A and C) Marcos of Seattle Latino Metropolitian Chamber of Commerce opposes the audience and repeats industry talking points. Gabriel and Marcos had an op-ed piece in the Seattle Times last month making their case in more detail. Katie supports the ordinance, highlights the misleading texts, accurately describes the Washington Retail Association's points earlier as insulting the CM's intelligence. Karen, who lives on EBT and has chronic pain, supports the amendments. Can't always shop for or prepare groceries, relies on delivery services. If they know she's disabled they'll exploit her. Washington Food Industry Alliance (which represents independent grocers) highlights that the bill exempts small groery shops and changes -- who don't use algorithmic pricing. Thanks CM Rinck for protecting them Three more callers support passing the ordinance without amendments. "Seattle has the opportunity to lead the way" A good note to close on! And that wraps up public comment. Now moving swiftly through various procedural issues and non-controrsial votes, all passing unanimously. And the big moment! @councilmember-amr.seattle.gov (as committee chair) introduces the bill: "an important step we can take to protect against AI price gouging". Asks council to pass a strong enforceable bill. @alexis4seattle.bsky.social gighlights that she's supporting the version of the bill that left the committee -- opposing all amendments (although will ask clarifying questions) ... great to hear! Up first, amendents A B and C. If amendment A passes, B and C are moot so won't be discussed. A: seattle.legistar.com B: seattle.legistar.com C: seattle.legistar.com
seattle.legistar.com
Here's the effect of A. Tomaso from central staff notes that this completely changes the bill by allowing surveillance pricing as long as it's described as , so a lot of the exceptions would be removed.
Amendment B clarifies that discounts on gas prices are covered. The current underlying bill doesn't speak to those. I'm often sarcastic about "clarifications" but this seems like a legit clarification. I *didn't* oppose this in my testimony. Amendment C allows "flexibility" for retailers by letting them work with third-parties and manufacturers to do surveillance pricing, removing equity requirements. I described this and amendment A as gutting protections, and so did several others.
AMR asks a scenario where the list price is $10 and one consumer gets a discount of $1 to one and $3 to another. The amendment allows that. How does that protect the consumer paying $9? It doesn't. Does anything in this amendment prohibit the retailer from raising the price before giving discounts? A long answer about the definition of "bona fide market price" but it seems to boil down to ... no. Another question: how would a shopper know why they got a higher or lower discount? They wouldn't. As AMR notes, it would still be a black box. Oops that was procedurally out of order. CM Kettle now officially moves amendment A, and thanks all the stakeholders his team has engaged with. Thanks UFCW team for being there and mentioning his name so many times. Recognizes that the bill will pass and some or all of the amendments will fail, highlights that his amendments come from a place of care. Correctly blames Trump administration for increased clost of groceries, although leaves out profiteering from big grocery and big tech. "You can require a discount to be offered to everybody, but you can't require a discount. So regulation could lead to discounts going away." CM Rivera says that the regulation could have used more time. Supports banning algorithmic pricing, but want to make sure loyalty programs stay around. More time could have helped with that. Oh come on, they're going to make the same threats no matter how much time you give them! CM Rivera echoes industry talking points about "unintended consequences", concerned about affordability. CM Rivera admits she doesn't quite understand, thinks that this amendment is needed to protect loyalty programs. But that's already in the bill! Tomaso goes through AMR's hypothetical again (although doesn't point out that the bill allows loyalty programs!) CM Rivera asks whether we have data who are getting different prices. The answer is yes -- this was discussed in committee hearings -- but Tomaso says he can't comment on that. CM Kettle frames the amendment as protecting loyalty programs. But that's nonsense! Oh wait, it's also repeating an industry talking point -- the sae one they're sending out in their texts. Potayto, potahto. CM Kettle talks about getting 21% off his coke. "That 21% is real" You can already see where this is going. When the bill passes and Safeway petulantly cancels their loyalty programs, CM Kettle will claim his amendment would have saved it. But nobody buys it. Amendment A fails 7-2. Good news! Amendment B clarifies that gas discounts are permitted, as long as they aren't based on use of persomal information. Thanks UFCW 3000 for sending mail supporting it. Amendment B passes, 8-1, only AMR voting no. Kettle moves Amendment C. "Similar to A thjs is focused on loyalty programs." CM Rivera asks if the legislation requires loyalty programs to remain in existence. ???? No of course not. Again though you can see how this fits into industry's lobbying strategy ... Once the bill passes, they might well follow through on their threat to shut down their loyalty programs in Seattle in retaiiation, and then use that to pressure the state legislature to pass something with bigger exemptions. We shall see! Central staff clarifies that the underlying bill allows loyalty programs, this amendment just changes the details of the exemptions. CM Rivera asks if the bill requires company to offer discounts, did I hear that right? AMR notes that the bill already allows discounts based on purchase history. What in the bill would require removing loyalty programs? Tomaso doesn't know, don't have independent information about whether grocery loyalty programs needs AMR notes that this amendment also removes equity requirements, asks if that's a necessary part of loyalty programs. Again Tomaso doesn't know. If it passes, and it conflicts with their current practives, they'll have to change. AMR cites the careful work her team did to take current practices into account, so urges a no vote. CM Rivera says sure but what if they cancel the loyalty programs anyhow? CM Kettle again talks about the focus on loyalty programs. Which is funny, because the bit allowing them to use personal data as part of loyalty programs is only one of the four bullets, but whatever. Amendment C fails 7-2, once again only Kettle and Rivera voting yes. Amendment D, chaging the definition of electronic shelf label systems (ESL). Kettle descriges it as "a tecnical fix, keeping it simple and keeping it focused." seattle.legistar.com Be wary of anything described as a "technical fix", it's very often a loophole!
seattle.legistar.com
The loophole here BTW is for stuff like smart grocery carts, that do ESL-like things Central staffing notes that the bill doesn't ban ESLs in general, just an ESL for a prohibited practice, and the amendment doesn't change that. Amendment D fails 6-3, with Saka (I think) joining Kettle and Rivera. Amendent E: seattle.legistar.com Kettle descriges it as "reducing costs", but it's actually weakening enforcement. Potayto, potahto.
AMR: suppose a shopper learns more than a year after their purchase that their personal information was used to determine their price. What recourse do they have? Tomaso says the private right of action wouldn't be available, although the city attorney could still enforce it. AMR notes that it's a new policy for the city, important to preserve private right of action, asks for a no vote. CM Rivera is aware that there are a couple of other cities considering this legislation, points to New York ... hmm how bizarre is it that she knows about legislation in other places but doesn't understand the details of this bill? But anyhow ... CM Rivera notes that other jurisdictions don't generally have a private right of action. What's with that? [Lobbyists have killed it. That's other states' problems, not ours!] Tomaso notes that they're all state level, and it's generally AG enforceent, with more resources. Oh wait, CM Rivera "did some research" and knows that other jurisdictions did it at the state level. In other words, lobbyists wanted her to raise this point and gave her the info. Hahaha. CM Rivera Asks about why it was considered at the municipal level and not the state level. Tomaso wisely defers to sponsor and mayor. Notes that there was a state-level bill that was unsuccessful (yeah because lobbyists killed it). CM Kettle says he doesn't do hypotheticals, but what if they found out something happened in year 4? Amendment E fails 7-2. Now amendment F. seattle.legistar.com Tomaso notes that this responds to an issue that term "electronic surveillance technologies" wasn't defined in the bill
President Hollingsworth highlights the issue of retail theft and loss prevention. Says that she felt the emails talking about how the emails saying this would enable DHS didn't respect her intent. The goal here is to clarify that these technolgoies are available for loss prevention. As somebody who sent that mail, I didn't disrespect her intent, just the net impact! Amendment F passes 8-1-, only AMR voting no. Amendment G. AMR asks what guarantees there are that the state legislation would be as strong as Seattle's? None. SHe asks for a no vote. Amendment G fails 7-2.
Amendment H. Kettle: "I know you all love reports! Here's a chance to let one amendment of mine pass. I know deep inside you can support this." seattle.legistar.com
AMR agrees she loves reports, but asks about the cost. Tomaso says Mayor's office says there would be a fiscal impact, not clear how much. President Hollingsworth says data is good. CM Strauss thanks CM Kettle for his good spirit and humor. A polite round of applause for Kettle Amendment H passes 7-2, Rinck and Foster voting no. Kettle is happy. Now on to the final bill! CM Kettle: concerned about affordability, tarrifs, Iran, property taxes, county sales taxes, utility rates. "Yes I can afford it but my concerns are people who are more vulnerable." But everybody representing vulnerable communities who spoke supports the ordinance! CM Rivera: also concerned about affordability, a lot of folks rely on loyalty programs. Suggests that the folks who are likely to be hurt by the bill are the blue-collar workers ... but wait all the unions are supporting this bill! Says it would be better to do at the state level, and maybe that will happen. Very concerned about affordability. CM Lin thanks the public for staying through this long session. Accurately describes all the @ufcw3000.bsky.social workers here as whistleblowers, thanks them for standing up for all of us. Lin: concerned about how our data is used, bought and sold witout consent -- and then to add insult to injury used to boost prices. This bill doesn't address the first, but does addresses the second. Notes that it's not a partisan issue -- a KIRO reporter supports it, so does Consumer Reports. "Discounts existed long before surveillance pricing", yeah really! Lin: Surveillance pricing is creepy. Hopefully after today's vote it will be illegal, at least for this one industry. Hopes it expands to other areas, and to the state and federal level CM Saka: "The time is now!" Thjis legislation does not, DOES NOT, ban discounts and loyalty programs. It simply ends predatory tactics that inflate prices and undermine trust. Improves affordability for everyone. Saka talks aout all the food deserts in D1. "My constituents shouldn't pay more just because predatory corpoations can get away with it!" Deliberations made the bill better and more precise. Firmly aligned with its goals, proud to be cosposor, excited to vote yes. Thanks Mayor, co-sposnors. CM Foster, also a co-sponsor. So important to protect residents, including consumer protections. When others fail, it's important for municipalities to lead, and that's what this bill does! Thanks people who were involved, including frontline workers at @ufcw3000.bsky.social Goes back to the committee testimony of somebody (I think from AI Now) who looked at the price on her phone and andother person's phone and they were different. That isn't right! "It shouldn't be that the value of somebody's data determines the price they're getting" CM Foster: "I'm really proud of us for taking action." Thanks CM Rinck and her staff. Also excited to vote yes! AMR: "the price of groceries should be based on the product, not what an algorithm thinks somebody is and what they will pay". "No company invests millions of dollars just to give people discounts." Noest that they worked i partnership with data privacy advocates, consumer advocates, workers, and yes even grocery associations. Thanks co-sponsors Foster and Saka, Tomaso and Jasmine from central staff, and all of her team, Mayor Wilson and her team The staffers really did a great job on this -- as they so often do! Thanks UFCW 3000, WA People's Privacy, MLK Labor and the 30 other organizations This will be the strongest policy in the country. Asks for a yes vote for privacy and for affordability! Council President Hollingsworth thanks sponsors. Wants to highlight that we want to support businesses, working on stores at 23rd and Jackson, replacing the Fred Mayer in Lake City. Are we ready? We are! And that's it! The Seattle Fair Pricing and Transparency Ordinance passes 7-2, and surveillance pricing is now banned in Seattle!!!!!!