Washington Post setting prices ‘based on personal data – slapped with massive lawsuit

  • The Washingtonian: “The Washington Post Is Using Reader Data to Set Subscription Prices. How Does That Work? Some subscribers recently received a heads-up that they’re on the hook for a new rate “set by an algorithm using your personal data.” We asked a UVA expert what that might mean. If recent events have not compelled you to cancel your Washington Post subscription, then you might have been in for sticker shock at the dawn of your latest billing cycle. Many readers have been notified via email that their subscription rates are set to increase. Nestled at the bottom of these emails, you’ll find an asterisk and the following: “This price was set by an algorithm using your personal data.” The Post‘s use of algorithmic pricing is not surprising, given the newspaper’s recent fixation on artificial intelligence—consider its AI-powered search engine and robot-led podcast. When we asked the Post for comment on its algorithmic pricing mechanisms, a spokesperson directed us to a blog post from the publication’s engineering team. The article explains how an AI-driven “smart metering model” determines the number of free articles both anonymous users (who are not registered on the Post‘s website) and registered users (who have free online accounts but no paid subscription) can access before a paywall pops up. But it doesn’t touch specifically on how the Post uses subscriber information to determine pricing.
  • Yahoo Finance: Dynamic pricing and how they decide what to charge you. From surge pricing to “surveillance pricing” Dynamic pricing isn’t new. Airlines have long adjusted ticket prices based on demand. Ride-hailing apps also increase fares during busy periods. Meanwhile, hotels charge more during peak travel seasons. Traditional dynamic pricing responds to market factors like time, inventory and demand. Thanks to the advancements in AI, it’s possible for companies to set prices based on your online behavior. Regulators increasingly refer to this as “surveillance pricing.” The Washington Post has not publicly detailed its pricing algorithm. However, Luca Cian, a University of Virginia business professor, told The Washingtonian that such systems typically rely on a mix of demographic signals, behavioural data, and inferred income (1). These factors can include: Device type: Using an iPhone may signal a higher income than using an Android device; Location data: IP addresses can be cross-referenced with housing values through Zillow to estimate wealth; Reading behaviour: Frequent users are charged more because they appear to value the service more. In other words, the algorithm is estimating how much you personally are willing to pay. The Post’s disclosure stands out because most companies don’t explicitly tell customers about dynamic pricing, but the practice is widespread…”
  • Mediaite – “A class action lawsuit [compliant document included in the article] was filed against The Washington Post Thursday, alleging its digital systems collected private data through secret surveillance in order to price gouge its most loyal longterm subscribers — and potentially threatening to cost the paper “millions, if not billions, in damages,” according to one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs. The Post has lost hundreds of thousands of subscribers amid major layoffs and other changes at the paper; the 43-page complaint claims the paper deployed deceptive technological means to wring extra money from the ones who stayed. The complaint, filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, detailed how the Post had invested substantial resources in its website and other digital assets after Bezos took over in 2013, enjoying “predictable revenue, powered by consistent readership numbers and increased site traffic.” Subscribers expected their personal data would be used for “mutually beneficial purposes,” the complaint continued, like showing “relevant advertisements,” but the Post soon allegedly began engaging in surveillance without the knowledge or consent of the subscribers…”
Posted in: AI, E-Records, Internet, Legal Research, Privacy