Technologies

Prices Set by Algorithms: New Yorkers Now See Warnings About Stores Using Personal Data to Set Costs

This new law, already subject to lawsuits, lets shoppers know when companies are quietly raising online prices for certain types of customers.

Online shoppers in New York are now seeing a new warning on product pages thanks to consumer protection legislation that took effect in early November. Particularly noticeable during Black Friday sales were messages that told shoppers: «This price was set by an algorithm using your personal data.»

This piece of legislation requires companies (with exceptions for rideshare apps) to show buyers when they use surveillance pricing to set online prices, potentially raising costs for some people while lowering them for others.

Don’t miss any of our unbiased tech content and lab-based reviews. Add CNET as a preferred Google source.

So what data are these companies collecting to shift prices? Well, unlike surge pricing, this type of algorithm pricing calculates data related to the individual person or device. That could include the type of device (Android versus iPhone, etc.), your account’s browsing history, recent purchases made from that browser and — most importantly — your location.

In other words, reported examples have shown that items like eggs will increase in cost for wealthy neighborhoods while staying at lower standard costs for less prosperous zones. But it can get far more complicated than that: Some pricing algorithms study millions of online purchases to predict buyer patterns.

A representative for the New York Senate didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Is surveillance pricing legal?

So far, yes. What laws like this New York legislation do is enforce transparency about what may be affecting prices, instead of banning it. And even that was too much for business groups, which immediately sued to block the law in federal court, alleging that it violates the businesses’ First Amendment rights.

It’s not clear whether companies are complying with the law as directed, or what it fully entails, either. The bill requires «clear and conspicuous disclosure» near the price, but some companies appear to be putting the information in a harder-to-spot area behind an information icon at the bottom of a pop-up.

Efforts to control pricing via algorithm

New York isn’t the only state to tackle surveillance pricing. Other states and cities are entertaining similar legislation, as well as complete bans on the practice. But it’s an uphill battle due to the many details and strong pushback from, well, every industry that sells products online.

The most recent example was from September, when California’s congress went through its proposed ban on surveillance pricing and cut out nearly everything. In its current state, the California law would only apply to grocery prices, which is still not a common online purchase. Colorado, Illinois and other states are also working on their own versions of related laws.

The question of whether shoppers would appreciate transparency laws, or whether they’d be less likely to purchase products if they knew the price was based on their personal data, is tough to answer (what if the algorithms are giving you a lower price than other nearby shoppers?). But the privacy question has a more far-reaching impact: Once shoppers see how much of their personal data is being harvested for pricing, they may start to wonder what else it’s being used for.

Technologies

Today’s NYT Mini Crossword Answers for Saturday, Feb. 21

Here are the answers for The New York Times Mini Crossword for Feb. 21.

Looking for the most recent Mini Crossword answer? Click here for today’s Mini Crossword hints, as well as our daily answers and hints for The New York Times Wordle, Strands, Connections and Connections: Sports Edition puzzles.

Need some help with today’s Mini Crossword? It’s the long Saturday version, and some of the clues are stumpers. I was really thrown by 10-Across. Read on for all the answers. And if you could use some hints and guidance for daily solving, check out our Mini Crossword tips.

If you’re looking for today’s Wordle, Connections, Connections: Sports Edition and Strands answers, you can visit CNET’s NYT puzzle hints page.

Read more: Tips and Tricks for Solving The New York Times Mini Crossword

Let’s get to those Mini Crossword clues and answers.

Mini across clues and answers

1A clue: «Jersey Shore» channel
Answer: MTV

4A clue: «___ Knows» (rhyming ad slogan)
Answer: LOWES

6A clue: Second-best-selling female musician of all time, behind Taylor Swift
Answer: MADONNA

8A clue: Whiskey grain
Answer: RYE

9A clue: Dreaded workday: Abbr.
Answer: MON

10A clue: Backfiring blunder, in modern lingo
Answer: SELFOWN

12A clue: Lengthy sheet for a complicated board game, perhaps
Answer: RULES

13A clue: Subtle «Yes»
Answer: NOD

Mini down clues and answers

1D clue: In which high schoolers might role-play as ambassadors
Answer: MODELUN

2D clue: This clue number
Answer: TWO

3D clue: Paid via app, perhaps
Answer: VENMOED

4D clue: Coat of paint
Answer: LAYER

5D clue: Falls in winter, say
Answer: SNOWS

6D clue: Married title
Answer: MRS

7D clue: ___ Arbor, Mich.
Answer: ANN

11D clue: Woman in Progressive ads
Answer: FLO

Technologies

Today’s NYT Connections: Sports Edition Hints and Answers for Feb. 21, #516

Here are hints and the answers for the NYT Connections: Sports Edition puzzle for Feb. 21, No. 516.

Looking for the most recent regular Connections answers? Click here for today’s Connections hints, as well as our daily answers and hints for The New York Times Mini Crossword, Wordle and Strands puzzles.

Today’s Connections: Sports Edition is a tough one. I actually thought the purple category, usually the most difficult, was the easiest of the four. If you’re struggling with today’s puzzle but still want to solve it, read on for hints and the answers.

Connections: Sports Edition is published by The Athletic, the subscription-based sports journalism site owned by The Times. It doesn’t appear in the NYT Games app, but it does in The Athletic’s own app. Or you can play it for free online.

Read more: NYT Connections: Sports Edition Puzzle Comes Out of Beta

Hints for today’s Connections: Sports Edition groups

Here are four hints for the groupings in today’s Connections: Sports Edition puzzle, ranked from the easiest yellow group to the tough (and sometimes bizarre) purple group.

Yellow group hint: Old Line State.

Green group hint: Hoops legend.

Blue group hint: Robert Redford movie.

Purple group hint: Vroom-vroom.

Answers for today’s Connections: Sports Edition groups

Yellow group: Maryland teams.

Green group: Shaquille O’Neal nicknames.

Blue group: Associated with «The Natural.»

Purple group: Sports that have a driver.

Read more: Wordle Cheat Sheet: Here Are the Most Popular Letters Used in English Words

What are today’s Connections: Sports Edition answers?

The yellow words in today’s Connections

The theme is Maryland teams. The four answers are Midshipmen, Orioles, Ravens and Terrapins.

The green words in today’s Connections

The theme is Shaquille O’Neal nicknames. The four answers are Big Aristotle, Diesel, Shaq and Superman.

The blue words in today’s Connections

The theme is associated with «The Natural.» The four answers are baseball, Hobbs, Knights and Wonderboy.

The purple words in today’s Connections

The theme is sports that have a driver. The four answers are bobsled, F1, golf and water polo.

Technologies

Wisconsin Reverses Decision to Ban VPNs in Age-Verification Bill

The law would have required websites to block VPN users from accessing «harmful material.»

Following a wave of criticism, Wisconsin lawmakers have decided not to include a ban on VPN services in their age-verification law, making its way through the state legislature.

Wisconsin Senate Bill 130 (and its sister Assembly Bill 105), introduced in March 2025, aims to prohibit businesses from «publishing or distributing material harmful to minors» unless there is a reasonable «method to verify the age of individuals attempting to access the website.»

One provision would have required businesses to bar people from accessing their sites via «a virtual private network system or virtual private network provider.»

A VPN lets you access the internet via an encrypted connection, enabling you to bypass firewalls and unblock geographically restricted websites and streaming content. While using a VPN, your IP address and physical location are masked, and your internet service provider doesn’t know which websites you visit.

Wisconsin state Sen. Van Wanggaard moved to delete that provision in the legislation, thereby releasing VPNs from any liability. The state assembly agreed to remove the VPN ban, and the bill now awaits Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers’s signature.

Rindala Alajaji, associate director of state affairs at the digital freedom nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation, says Wisconsin’s U-turn is «great news.»

«This shows the power of public advocacy and pushback,» Alajaji says. «Politicians heard the VPN users who shared their worries and fears, and the experts who explained how the ban wouldn’t work.»

Earlier this week, the EFF had written an open letter arguing that the draft laws did not «meaningfully advance the goal of keeping young people safe online.» The EFF said that blocking VPNs would harm many groups that rely on that software for private and secure internet connections, including «businesses, universities, journalists and ordinary citizens,» and that «many law enforcement professionals, veterans and small business owners rely on VPNs to safely use the internet.»

VPNs can also help you get around age-verification laws — for instance, if you live in a state or country that requires age verification to access certain material, you can use a VPN to make it look like you live elsewhere, thereby gaining access to that material. As age-restriction laws increase around the US, VPN use has also increased. However, many people are using free VPNs, which are fertile ground for cybercriminals.

In its letter to Wisconsin lawmakers prior to the reversal, the EFF argued that it is «unworkable» to require websites to block VPN users from accessing adult content. The EFF said such sites cannot «reliably determine» where a VPN customer lives — it could be any US state or even other countries.

«As a result, covered websites would face an impossible choice: either block all VPN users everywhere, disrupting access for millions of people nationwide, or cease offering services in Wisconsin altogether,» the EFF wrote.

Wisconsin is not the only state to consider VPN bans to prevent access to adult material. Last year, Michigan introduced the Anticorruption of Public Morals Act, which would ban all use of VPNs. If passed, it would force ISPs to detect and block VPN usage and also ban the sale of VPNs in the state. Fines could reach $500,000.