Why Americans Feel Ripped Off by Rising Prices

Published: 28 September 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

For millions of Americans, the struggle with the cost of living is no longer simply about inflation or the price of individual products. Increasingly, shoppers are questioning how prices are set, why they can vary from one consumer to another and whether new technologies are making it harder for people to know when they are receiving a fair deal.

Economic sociologist Lindsay Owens argues that the United States is experiencing what she describes as a reinvention of the traditional rip-off. In her new book, *Gouged: The End of a Fair Price – and What That Means for Your Wallet*, Owens examines how changing corporate strategies, reduced competition, consumer data and artificial intelligence are transforming the way businesses approach pricing.

Owens, who leads the Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive Washington thinktank, says the consequences extend beyond individual purchases. In her view, increasingly complicated and opaque pricing practices are damaging consumers’ confidence in the economy and creating a growing sense that ordinary shoppers are being asked to do too much simply to avoid paying more than necessary.

Her proposed response is not for consumers to become expert bargain hunters, but for governments to strengthen rules governing modern commerce and for shoppers to become more organised in demanding greater transparency.

Owens says her concerns began to develop during the inflationary period that followed 2021. While businesses faced higher costs, she noticed that some companies appeared increasingly willing to pass those costs on to customers while also seeking opportunities to increase revenue.

That represented a change from an earlier emphasis on controlling costs. For decades, corporate strategies had often focused on reducing expenses through outsourcing, weaker labour bargaining power, efficiency measures and attempts to minimise regulatory costs. Owens believes the emphasis has increasingly moved towards the other side of the balance sheet: finding new ways to raise revenue through pricing.

Technology, she argues, has made that process considerably more sophisticated.

Companies can now use advanced software, data analysis and artificial intelligence to study purchasing behaviour in ways that were difficult or impossible in previous decades. Outside consultants and technology firms can help businesses conduct pricing experiments, assess customer behaviour and determine how much different consumers might be willing to pay.

A particularly important part of that process is the growing commercial value of personal data.

Data brokers can compile extensive profiles containing information and predictions about individuals. Such information may include age, income and health-related details, as well as other characteristics and inferred preferences. Owens points to estimates suggesting that some data brokers maintain profiles covering the overwhelming majority of American adults.

For consumers, the concern is that such information may be used not simply to advertise products but to influence the prices and offers they encounter.

This possibility has contributed to growing debate over what has become known as surveillance or personalised pricing. Instead of every shopper necessarily seeing the same price, businesses could use information about customers to tailor offers or determine how much an individual might tolerate paying.

Owens does not argue that profit-making itself is inherently wrong. In a genuinely competitive market, she says, businesses have an incentive to compete over both quality and price because consumers can take their money elsewhere.

The problem, in her argument, arises when competition weakens, consumer protections fail to keep pace with technology and companies gain new tools for extracting additional revenue.

She also questions the continued existence of business models that depend heavily on harvesting personal information. Stronger privacy protections, she argues, could significantly alter the incentives behind the collection and commercial use of consumer data.

The modern shopping experience, meanwhile, can leave people feeling that they are responsible for defending themselves against increasingly complicated pricing systems.

Owens describes American shoppers as exhausted. High prices have already placed pressure on household budgets, while the growing use of credit cards and buy-now-pay-later services reflects the difficulty some consumers face in meeting everyday expenses.

At the same time, figuring out whether a purchase represents good value can require considerable effort.

A customer may encounter one price while browsing a website, another after logging into an account and a different offer through an app. Refund requests can involve lengthy interactions with automated customer-service systems, while consumers may need to monitor their bank accounts afterwards to ensure promised refunds actually arrive.

Owens believes this makes traditional comparison shopping increasingly difficult.

Her own response has been to experiment with different shopping conditions. She says she compares prices in physical shops and online, checks offers while logged into services and while logged out, and tries to avoid making purchases directly through apps when possible.

She has even turned price comparison into a household experiment, comparing the prices she and her husband receive on their separate devices. Whoever obtains the better deal may end up making the purchase.

The example illustrates one of Owens’ central arguments: consumers should not have to spend so much time becoming experts in the mechanisms businesses use to determine prices.

Her book therefore calls for what she describes as a shoppers’ bill of rights. Among the ideas discussed are restrictions on companies using shared software to coordinate pricing and requirements for artificial-intelligence shopping assistants to operate in consumers’ interests rather than directing them towards more expensive products.

The wider debate has already begun appearing in state and federal policy discussions.

Owens points to legislative efforts across the United States aimed at limiting algorithmic price-setting and other practices that critics believe could undermine fair competition. She also cites examples where public pressure has contributed to companies stepping back from proposed or experimental pricing strategies.

The issue has attracted attention from politicians across the political spectrum, according to Owens. She recently testified before a US Senate committee at the invitation of Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, highlighting that concerns about consumer data and AI-driven pricing are not necessarily confined to one political constituency.

Regulators are also examining the issue. The Federal Trade Commission has received hundreds of public comments concerning potential regulation of surveillance pricing, reflecting growing interest in how companies use personal information when setting or tailoring prices.

Yet Owens acknowledges that reform will not be straightforward. Consumer protection measures can face political opposition, legislative delays and changes at different levels of government. A proposal that advances in one state or city may encounter a veto or resistance elsewhere.

For consumers, the uncertainty can make the situation feel overwhelming.

Owens’ message is therefore deliberately reassuring: shoppers should not blame themselves for struggling to navigate an increasingly complicated pricing environment. She believes it is unrealistic to expect individuals to constantly outsmart sophisticated systems developed by companies with large amounts of data, technology and financial resources.

In her view, asking every consumer to become a specialist in avoiding price manipulation would be comparable to expecting individuals to solve a major systemic problem entirely on their own.

The challenge is particularly significant as artificial intelligence becomes more deeply embedded in commerce. AI can help businesses analyse demand, predict customer behaviour and adjust prices rapidly. At the same time, emerging forms of agentic commerce could allow automated systems to make purchasing decisions on behalf of consumers.

That creates new questions about whose interests those systems should serve.

Owens believes consumer protection laws need to be modernised for an era in which shopping increasingly takes place through algorithms rather than face-to-face transactions. Traditional rules designed for conventional retail may not adequately address personalised pricing, automated purchasing decisions or the vast quantities of consumer information now available to businesses.

Her argument ultimately centres on a basic question of trust.

Consumers accept that businesses need to make profits. They also understand that prices can rise because of labour costs, energy prices, supply disruptions, tariffs, wars and other economic pressures. But when pricing becomes so opaque that shoppers cannot distinguish genuine cost increases from strategic attempts to extract more money, confidence in the marketplace can suffer.

Owens believes the current cost-of-living pressure could provide an opportunity to rebuild a stronger consumer movement in the United States. She points to growing public frustration as evidence that Americans are increasingly willing to question how modern pricing works.

The debate is unlikely to be settled simply by asking shoppers to search harder for discounts. As technology changes the relationship between companies, data and prices, the rules governing that relationship are also likely to come under greater scrutiny.

For Owens, the ultimate objective is a marketplace in which consumers do not have to constantly fight sophisticated pricing systems simply to receive a fair deal. The responsibility, she argues, should not rest entirely on individuals. It should also lie with companies, regulators and lawmakers responsible for defining the boundaries of modern commerce.