Massachusetts lawmakers are advancing legislation to ban grocery stores from collecting and using biometric data to adjust prices or make in-store product suggestions, in one of the first state-level efforts to address this form of retail surveillance.
The proposed bill, H.99, introduced by Representative Lindsay Sabadosa, would prohibit food retailers from using facial recognition, fingerprint scanning, voiceprint analysis, retina or iris scans, gait recognition, and other unique biological characteristics to customize pricing or suggest items when that biometric data is collected on the premises. The measure allows for voluntary biometric identification at checkout for those who choose it.
Woodrow Hartzog, a professor who has testified in support of the bill, said it would “prohibit food stores from using tools like facial recognition to charge people different prices and provide vital breathing room for customers, while still allowing for people to receive discounts.” Sabadosa has emphasized the broader stakes, noting that “with one in three families facing food insecurity in the Commonwealth, we must act now to prevent corporate surveillance from becoming a standard practice in our grocery stores.”
While biometric systems are not yet common in Massachusetts supermarkets, large chains such as Wegmans have piloted facial recognition technology in other markets, demonstrating the potential for expansion. H.99 aims to put protections in place before these practices become widespread.
Legislative Progress and Broader Privacy Context
The Massachusetts House gave the bill initial approval on August 18, 2025, moving it to a third reading. A related Senate version, S.2515, is also advancing. If enacted, the law would create some of the strongest state-level limits on in-store biometric surveillance and could influence similar efforts elsewhere.
This push comes amid growing national attention to biometric privacy. Colorado recently implemented biometric data protections under its privacy law, requiring clear consent for collection and prompt deletion—no later than when the purpose is fulfilled or within a defined retention period. Supporters of the Massachusetts bill say such measures are needed to prevent “surveillance pricing” from becoming an accepted feature of the grocery shopping experience.
Sources: Worcester Business Journal, Massachusetts General Court, State Affairs Pro
–
By Ali Nassar-Smith
