内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/algorithmic-pricing-eggs-ny-law/

内容总结：

纽约州新规生效 零售商算法定价需主动披露

近日，纽约州一项新法律正式生效，要求企业若基于消费者个人数据通过算法设定价格，必须向顾客进行“清晰醒目”的披露。个人数据的定义广泛，包括任何能够“直接或间接与特定消费者或设备关联或合理关联”的信息。

零售巨头塔吉特（Target）在其网站上已开始添加相关提示。例如，当消费者查看商品价格时，若点击价格旁的“i”图标，并在弹出页面底部可发现一行说明：“此价格由算法根据您的个人数据设定。”实际案例显示，同款鸡蛋在纽约州罗切斯特市标价为1.99美元，而在曼哈顿高档社区Tribeca则显示为2.29美元；同一款卫生纸在皇后区法拉盛门店标价8.69美元，在Tribeca门店则为8.99美元。塔吉特未回应关于价差具体原因及使用了哪些个人数据的询问。

据悉，塔吉特长期以来根据不同地理位置设定差异价格，并曾表示在线价格“反映当地市场情况”。2022年，该公司就一项指控其利用地理围栏技术自动更新用户App内价格的集体诉讼达成和解。目前，访问其网站时，系统仍会自动关联附近门店，用户可手动更改设置。

算法定价在零售业并非新现象。早在2012年，史泰博（Staples）等企业已被曝根据用户预估位置显示不同价格，理由包括租金、劳动力等地区成本差异。去年，美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）启动了针对“监控定价”的市场研究，其中涵盖基于位置定价的行为。

纽约州的新法律虽未强制企业说明具体使用哪些数据及如何影响定价，但开启了算法定价透明化的监管尝试。宾夕法尼亚州等已提出类似法案，联邦层面也在今年7月推出了相关议案。据法律信息平台JD Supra统计，全美各州已提出超过50项与算法定价相关的法案，反映出对人工智能及算法影响消费价格的广泛监管关注。

与此同时，塔吉特持续探索高科技应用，近日宣布将在OpenAI的ChatGPT中推出购物助手功能，为用户提供个性化推荐。在算法日益渗透消费决策的背景下，价格如何被设定，正成为消费者与监管机构共同关注的焦点。

中文翻译：

如果你身处纽约州罗切斯特市附近，塔吉特网站上列出的Good & Gather品牌鸡蛋售价为每盒1.99美元。但若你位于曼哈顿高档社区翠贝卡，同款商品价格则变为2.29美元。虽然价差原因尚未明确，但塔吉特网站新近出现的提示或许能提供线索："此价格由算法根据您的个人数据设定。"

纽约州近期生效的一项法律规定，凡利用顾客个人数据通过算法定价的企业必须对此进行披露。根据该法案，个人数据涵盖任何"可直接或间接关联到特定消费者或设备"的信息。法律并未强制要求企业说明具体使用了哪些个人或设备信息，也未要求解释每条信息如何影响最终定价。法案特别排除了仅根据里程和行程时长计算出租车或网约车费用的定位数据使用场景，但规定其他用途仍需披露。

法律同时要求披露内容必须"清晰醒目"。塔吉特的披露方式并不显眼——顾客需要知晓并点击商品价格旁的"i"图标，再滑动弹窗至底部才能查看。既往司法案例表明，法院并不总是认可"顾客会主动点击非强制性的'更多信息'链接"这一假设。

塔吉特公司未回应关于价格差异的质询，也未依据披露要求说明具体使用了哪些个人数据。

多年来，塔吉特一直实行分区定价策略。2021年《赫芬顿邮报》曾发现其网站价格会随用户关联门店地址变化，公司发言人当时向记者解释其线上定价"反映当地市场情况"。2022年，该公司与加州多个县地方检察官达成和解，这些检察官指控其通过地理围栏技术自动更新用户手机应用中的价格。如今访问塔吉特网站时，系统仍会自动关联最近门店，用户可在网站设置中手动修改此关联。（塔吉特未回应关于如何确定访客实体店关联机制的询问。）

除鸡蛋外，卫生纸价格也随关联门店不同而变化。关联皇后区法拉盛门店的顾客购买六卷装Charmin超强耐冲卫生纸需支付8.69美元，而关联翠贝卡门店的同款商品标价则为8.99美元。

塔吉特的定价策略既非独创也非新兴事物，且不构成违法。2012年《华尔街日报》曾报道办公用品零售商史泰博网站会根据预估的用户位置显示差异化定价。史泰博当时承认这一做法，并向该报解释其定价"确实因地域而异，影响因素包括租金、劳动力、分销及其他经营成本"。2015年非营利新闻机构ProPublica发现，普林斯顿评论的SAT在线辅导套餐价格有时会根据顾客邮政编码产生数千美元差异。与史泰博类似，该机构向ProPublica表示其定价基于"运营成本及特定市场的竞争特性"。

去年美国联邦贸易委员会启动了一项名为"监控定价"的市场研究，其中包含利用顾客位置信息辅助定价的行为。该机构于今年1月发布中期报告，最终报告尚未公布。（笔者曾任职于联邦贸易委员会；塔吉特未纳入此项研究范围。）

除鸡蛋和卫生纸外，目前尚不清楚零售商还对哪些商品采用算法定价（或具体实施方式）。尽管披露条款未必能帮助消费者理解定价原理，但或许能揭示存在价格差异的商品范围。继纽约州之后，其他州也可能出台类似立法——宾夕法尼亚州今年早些时候已提出相关法案，而联邦层面关于监控定价的议案也于7月提交。人工智能与算法对消费定价的影响正引发更广泛的监管关注：据法律信息平台JD Supra统计，美国各州已提出超过50项涉及算法定价的议案，内容包括算法价格垄断及动态定价算法中特定特征数据的使用等。

与此同时，塔吉特正在探索其他高科技应用。该公司近期宣布将在OpenAI的ChatGPT平台推出专属应用，消费者可通过聊天机器人获取个性化购物推荐。

英文来源：

If you’re near Rochester, New York, the price for a carton of Target’s Good & Gather eggs is listed as $1.99 on its website. If you’re in Manhattan’s upscale Tribeca neighborhood, that price changes to $2.29. It’s unclear why the prices differ, but a new notice on Target’s website offers a potential hint: “This price was set by an algorithm using your personal data.”
A recently enacted New York State law requires businesses that algorithmically set prices using customers’ personal data to disclose that. According to the law, personal data includes any data that can be “linked or reasonably linked, directly or indirectly, with a specific consumer or device.” The law doesn’t require businesses to explicitly state what information about a person or device is being used or how each piece of information affects the final price a customer sees. The law includes a carve-out for the use of location data strictly to calculate cab or rideshare fares based on mileage and trip duration but not for other purposes.
The law also requires that the disclosure is “clear and conspicuous.” Target’s disclosure is not the easiest to find–a customer would have to know to click the “i” icon next to the price of an item, then scroll to the bottom of the pop-up. In the past, the courts have held that it’s not always reasonable to assume that a customer will click on “more information” links when it’s not required.
Target didn’t respond to questions about the price differences or explain what personal data was used per the disclosures.
For years, Target has had a practice of setting different prices for different locations. In 2021, the Huffington Post found that Target’s website changed prices depending on the store location associated with a user, and a spokesperson for the company told reporters at the time that its online prices “reflect the local market.” In 2022, the company settled a lawsuit filed by multiple California county district attorneys that alleged it used geofencing to automatically update the prices listed in customers’ Target apps. Today, when you visit Target’s website, it still automatically associates you with a nearby store, which you can change in the website’s settings. (Target didn’t respond to questions about how it decided which brick-and-mortar store to automatically associate with a website visitor.)
In addition to eggs, the price of toilet paper also appears to change based on what store a customer is associated with. For those whose store is set in Flushing, Queens, a six-pack of Mega Charmin Ultra Strong Septic-Safe Toilet Paper is $8.69. Those with the Tribeca location are shown $8.99 for the same listing.
Target’s pricing practices aren’t unique or all that new—nor are they illegal. In 2012, The Wall Street Journal reported that office supply retailer Staples was displaying different prices to customers on its website after estimating their location. At the time, Staples acknowledged the practice, telling the Journal that its prices “do vary by geography due to a variety of factors, including rent, labor, distribution, and other costs of doing business.” In 2015, ProPublica found that the Princeton Review’s online SAT tutoring packages sometimes varied by thousands of dollars based on the zip code provided by customers. Similar to Staples, the Princeton Review told ProPublica that its pricing was based on the “costs of running our business and the competitive attributes of the given market.”
Last year, the Federal Trade Commission initiated a market study on what it called “surveillance pricing,” which it said included using a customer’s location to help set prices. The agency published an interim report in January but has yet to release a final report. (I was previously employed by the FTC; Target was not included in the market study.)
Beyond eggs and toilet paper, it’s not clear what else retailers are pricing algorithmically (or how). The disclosures could potentially shed some light on the variety of goods customers pay different prices for, even if it doesn’t necessarily help consumers understand why. The New York law might be followed by similar legislation in other states—at least one other state, Pennsylvania, introduced a similar bill earlier this year—and a federal bill addressing surveillance pricing was introduced in July. There’s broader regulatory interest in the ways that AI and algorithms can influence consumer pricing: According to JD Supra, over 50 bills related to algorithmic pricing, including those related to algorithmic price-fixing and the use of certain characteristics in dynamic pricing algorithms, have been introduced at the state level across the United States.
Meanwhile, Target has been exploring other high-tech efforts. It recently announced that it is launching a Target app in OpenAI’s ChatGPT, where consumers will be able to lean on the chatbot for personalized shopping recommendations.