Congress Probes AI-Driven Surveillance Pricing at Uber, Lyft, and Expedia
The House Oversight Committee has opened a formal investigation into whether major travel and gig economy platforms are using artificial intelligence to add surveillance pricing. Representative James Comer, the Republican chair of the committee, sent letters on March 5 to the CEOs of Uber, Lyft, Expedia, Booking.com, and Instacart demanding disclosure of their AI pricing practices.
The inquiry centers on surveillance pricing, a strategy where companies use consumer personal data (browsing history, location, shopping habits, device type, even battery life) to set individualized algorithmic prices rather than standard market-wide rates. Comer raised concerns that the rise of these algorithms may create opportunities for companies to weaponize personal data and pad profit margins at the expense of consumer transparency.
What the Committee Wants to Know
Comer’s letters, first reported by Reuters, seek extensive documentation by March 19. The requests include:
- Communications detailing revenue management algorithms and their financial impact
- Documentation of how consumer data creates individualized pricing profiles
- Evidence of whether algorithms determine emotional state, purchase intent, and maximum willingness to pay
Often this takes place in a black box environment where consumers do not know that personalized pricing is taking place or what information collected about them is driving prices, Comer wrote. He noted companies use data points including geolocation, demographics, browsing history, purchase history, device type, battery life, and even mouse clicks to assign different prices to different individuals.
Company Responses
The accused platforms have uniformly denied engaging in surveillance pricing. Uber stated on Thursday that it does not engage in surveillance pricing and does not personalize prices. Fares are determined by factors like location, time, and demand, not by a customer’s individual characteristics, past behavior, or device information.
Expedia responded that it does not increase prices based on user data or activity and does not personalize pricing based on any protected personal characteristics. Instacart said it does not engage and has not engaged in surveillance pricing, period. No personal, demographic, or user-level behavioral information about individuals is used by retailers to set item prices on Instacart.
Booking.com and Lyft had not publicly responded to requests for comment at press time.
Broader Regulatory Context
This congressional probe is not occurring in isolation. California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced in January a broad investigative sweep into the practice of using personal data to set individualized prices. The California probe, launched on Data Privacy Day 2026, signals that state regulators are already treating surveillance pricing as a serious consumer protection issue.
In November 2025, two dozen House Democratic lawmakers asked Delta Air Lines to answer questions about whether it would use generative artificial intelligence to help set ticket prices. Lawmakers raised concerns that airlines could use AI, personal data, or consumers’ internet usage (for example, visiting a funeral home website) to pinpoint when people most want to travel, and subsequently hike airfares or other prices. Delta has stated 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 or otherwise.
Why This Matters for Travel Merchants
For travel industry operators and payment processors, the surveillance pricing debate cuts several ways. On one hand, sophisticated dynamic pricing has been standard practice in travel for decades. Airlines pioneered yield management in the 1980s, and hotels, rental car companies, and cruise lines have long used demand-based pricing to maximize revenue.
What distinguishes surveillance pricing from traditional dynamic pricing is the granularity of the personalization. Dynamic pricing adjusts rates based on market conditions and inventory levels. Surveillance pricing allegedly adjusts rates based on the specific individual attempting to make the purchase.
The implications for merchant acquirers and payment facilitators are significant. If regulators clamp down on algorithmic pricing methods, travel merchants may face new compliance requirements around data usage and price transparency. Payment processors could see increased scrutiny of their merchant portfolios, particularly in high-risk categories where personalized pricing algorithms are deployed.
Looking Ahead
The March 19 deadline for document production will likely reveal whether these companies’ public denials match their internal practices. If the committee uncovers evidence of surveillance pricing, expect bipartisan momentum for federal legislation governing algorithmic pricing transparency.
For now, travel merchants should audit their own pricing practices. Any algorithm that considers individual consumer behavior data (beyond broad demographic segments) could attract regulatory attention. The line between legitimate revenue optimization and surveillance pricing may become one of the defining regulatory battles of 2026.
