Google’s AI shopping push sparks consumer backlash over fears of ‘surveillance pricing’

Google’s newly unveiled Universal Commerce Protocol for AI-powered shopping agents has triggered an early backlash from consumer watchdogs, with warnings that the technology could eventually enable what critics are calling “surveillance pricing,” as per a TechCrunch report.

In a viral post on X that has been viewed nearly 400,000 times, Lindsay Owens, executive director of consumer economics think tank Groundwork Collaborative, accused Google of planning to use personal data to manipulate shopping outcomes.

“Big/bad news for consumers,” Owens wrote. “Google is out today with an announcement of how they plan to integrate shopping into their AI offerings including Search and Gemini. The plan includes ‘personalized upselling’ — i.e. analysing your chat data and using it to overcharge you.”

Owens said her concerns stem from Google’s published roadmap and technical documentation, which reference “upselling” features designed to help merchants promote higher-priced products to AI shopping agents. She also flagged Google’s plans to adjust pricing through mechanisms such as new-member discounts and loyalty-based offers, which CEO Sundar Pichai discussed while unveiling the protocol at the National Retail Federation conference.

After TechCrunch sought comment, Google publicly rejected Owens’ claims and said the concerns were unfounded.

“These claims around pricing are inaccurate,” Google wrote in a post on X. “We strictly prohibit merchants from showing prices on Google that are higher than what is reflected on their site, period. The term ‘upselling’ is not about overcharging. It’s a standard way for retailers to show additional premium product options. The choice is always with the user. ‘Direct Offers’ is a pilot that allows merchants to offer lower prices or added services like free shipping — it cannot be used to raise prices.”

In a separate statement to TechCrunch, a Google spokesperson added that the company’s Business Agent does not have the ability to modify retailer pricing based on individual user data.

Owens also raised concerns over Google’s technical documentation on identity handling, which states that “the scope complexity should be hidden in the consent screen shown to the user.” Google countered that this language refers to simplifying user permissions by grouping multiple actions together, not obscuring consent.

Even if this particular protocol does not yet enable personalised pricing, Owens argues the broader risk remains: AI-powered shopping agents could eventually allow merchants to tailor prices based on behavioural data, chat history and inferred willingness to pay, rather than offering uniform pricing. She describes the model as “surveillance pricing.”

The debate comes as Google, whose core business remains advertising and data-driven commerce, continues to expand its AI-driven retail ambitions. Last year, a US federal court ordered the company to change key search practices after ruling it had engaged in anticompetitive behaviour.

While AI agents promise convenience for consumers, critics warn that the same technologies could create new avenues for abuse if left unchecked. The concern is driving interest in independent startups building alternative shopping tools, including Dupe, which uses natural language search for affordable furniture discovery, and Beni, which applies AI to thrift shopping.

For now, as AI-driven commerce rapidly evolves, consumer advocates say the familiar rule still applies: buyer beware.