logo
Shoppers are wary of digital shelf labels, but a study found they don't lead to price surges

Shoppers are wary of digital shelf labels, but a study found they don't lead to price surges

Time of India4 hours ago

Digital
price labels, which are rapidly replacing paper
shelf tags
at U.S. supermarkets, haven't led to demand-based pricing surges, according to a new study that examined five years' worth of prices at one
grocery chain
.
But some shoppers, consumer advocates and lawmakers remain skeptical about the tiny electronic screens, which let stores change prices instantly from a central computer instead of having workers swout paper labels by hand.
"It's corporations vs. the humans, and that chasm between us goes further and further," said Dan Gallant, who works in sports media in Edmonton, Canada. Gallant's local Loblaws supermarket recently switched to digital labels.
Social media is filled with warnings that grocers will use the technology to charge more for ice cream if it's hot outside, hike the price of umbrellas if it's raining or to gather information about customers.
Democratic U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania fired off a letter to Kroger last fall demanding to know whether it would use its electronic labels as part of a dynamic pricing strategy.
Lawmakers in Rhode Island and Maine have introduced bills to limit the use of digital labels. In Arizona, Democratic state Rep. Cesar Aguilar recently introduced a bill that would ban them altogether.
The bill hasn't gotten a hearing, but Aguilar said he's determined to start a conversation about digital labels and how stores could abuse them.
"Grocery stores study when people go shopping the most. And so you might be able to see a price go down one day and then go up another day," Aguilar told The Associated Press.
Researchers say those fears are misplaced. A study published in late May found "virtually no surge pricing" before or after electronic shelf labels were adopted. The study was authored by Ioannis Stamatopoulos of the University of Texas, Austin,
Robert Evan Sanders
of the University of California, San Diego and Robert Bray of Northwestern University
The researchers looked at prices between 2019 and 2024 at an unnamed grocery chain than began using digital labels in October 2022. They found that temporary price increases affected 0.005% of products on any given day before electronic shelf labels were introduced, a share that increased by only 0.0006 percentage points after digital labels were installed.
The study also determined that discounts were slightly more common after digital labels were introduced.
Economists have long wondered why grocery prices don't change more often, according to Stamatopoulos. If bananas are about to expire, for example, it makes sense to lower the price on them. He said the cost of having workers change prices by hand could be one issue.
But there's another reason: Shoppers watch grocery prices closely, and stores don't want to risk angering them.
"Selling groceries is not selling a couch. It's not a one-time transaction and you will never see them again," Stamatopoulos said. "You want them coming to the store every week."
Electronic price labels aren't new. They've been in use for more than a decade at groceries in Europe and some U.S. retailers, like Kohl's.
But they've been slow to migrate to U.S. grocery stores. Only around 5% to 10% of U.S. supermarkets now have electronic labels, compared to 80% in Europe, said Amanda Oren, vice president of industry strategy for North American grocery at Relex Solutions, a technology company that helps retailers forecast demand.
Oren said cost is one issue that has slowed the U.S. rollout. The tiny screens cost between $5 and $20, Oren said, but every product a store sells needs one, and the average supermarket has 100,000 or more individual products.
Still, the U.S. industry is charging ahead. Walmart, the nation's largest grocer and retailer, hopes to have digital price labels at 2,300 U.S. stores by 2026. Kroger is expanding the use of digital labels this year after testing them at 20 stores. Whole Foods is testing the labels in nearly 50 stores.
Companies say electronic price labels have tremendous advantages. Walmart says it used to take employees two days to change paper price labels on the 120,000 items it has in a typical store. With digital tags, it takes a few minutes.
The labels can also be useful. Some have codes shoppers can scan to see recipes or nutrition information. Instacart has a system in thousands of U.S. stores, including Aldi and Schnucks, that flashes a light on the digital tag when Instacart shoppers are nearby to help them find products.
Ahold Delhaize's Albert Heijn supermarket chain in the Netherlands and Belgium has been testing an artificial intelligence-enabled tool since 2022 that marks down prices on its digital labels every 15 minutes for products nearing expiration. The system has reduced more than 250 tons of food waste annually, the company said.
But Warren and Casey are skeptical. In their letter to Kroger, the U.S. senators noted a partnership with Microsoft that planned to put cameras in grocery aisles and offer personalized deals to shoppers depending on their gender and age.
In its response, Kroger said the prices shown on its digital labels were not connected to any sort of facial recognition technology. It also denied surging prices during periods of peak demand.
"Kroger's business model is built on a foundation of lowering prices to attract more customers," the company said.
Aguilar, the Arizona lawmaker, said he also opposes the transition to digital labels because he thinks they will cost jobs. His constituents have pointed out that grocery prices keep rising even though there are fewer workers in checkout lanes, he said.
"They are supposed to be part of our community, and that means hiring people from our community that fill those jobs," Aguilar said.
But Relex Solutions' Oren said she doesn't think cutting labor costs is the main reason stores deploy digital price tags.
"It's about working smarter, not harder, and being able to use that labor in better ways across the store rather than these very mundane, repetitive tasks," she said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump vs Musk: Billionaire investor Michael Moritz' advice to Silicon Valley, 'One of them is a medical monarch...'
Trump vs Musk: Billionaire investor Michael Moritz' advice to Silicon Valley, 'One of them is a medical monarch...'

Time of India

time44 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Trump vs Musk: Billionaire investor Michael Moritz' advice to Silicon Valley, 'One of them is a medical monarch...'

Silicon Valley investor Michael Moritz took Elon Musk's side and said Trump's budget truly is abomination. Longtime Silicon Valley investor Michael Moritz said the tussle between Donald Trump and Elon Musk was inevitable as one of them is a medieval monarch and another is a revolutionary. In his column on Financial Times, Mortiz wrote that one man approached the government like a company and the other considers the government his company and Silicon Valley knows which to choose. Calling the eruption between Elon Musk and Donald Trump mortifying for those in Silicon Valley, Moritz backed Musk and said he is right in calling Donald Trump's budget an abomination. "I feel more than a tinge of sympathy for Musk. Unlike others, I don't believe he threw himself into this battle for personal gain or to wangle deals for his companies. He, like many, was disenchanted with a Democratic party that had lost its moorings, mismanaged California and whose leader, Joe Biden, let vanity conquer virtue. Sadly, he misjudged the character of the man with whom he threw in his lot," Mortiz wrote. Elon Musk is undoubtedly the most accomplished business builder of his generation, Moritz said. "But the government is not a company". Moritz said Musk failed to understand that Trump was more interested in the daily news cycle than in reform. "Musk is the revolutionary, the president the monarch". Musk also underestimated the way in which Trump's "cabinet and advisers, and all the targets in his crosshairs, were determined to fight him. He was the outsider. They were the occupants of the swamp." "What is the result of this meeting of company builder and medieval monarch? It's the opposite of what was promised: a US budget that has ballooned, debt levels that will only rise and crushing interest payments that make the country vulnerable to its largest creditors — Japan and China." Moritz took Elon Musk's side and said his reputation is now tarnished and his business interests hurt but Donald Trump's family business inked deals for new hotels and golf courses around the world. "One word of advice for those in Silicon Valley who followed Musk's lead and sided with Trump. Leave. Don't delude yourself that you are working to make crypto a part of global finance, minimising artificial intelligence regulation, helping start-up companies or protecting the interests of Silicon Valley. You have no sway. You are just cannon fodder," Moritz said.

Los Angeles protests: California sues Trump administration for deploying National Guard and 'acting illegally'
Los Angeles protests: California sues Trump administration for deploying National Guard and 'acting illegally'

Time of India

time2 hours ago

  • Time of India

Los Angeles protests: California sues Trump administration for deploying National Guard and 'acting illegally'

California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a Monday post that California will sue President Trump, saying he "illegally acted" to federalize the National Guard during protests against federal immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles to curb unrest over immigration raids. Trump repeatedly criticised Newsom and other California officials' handling of the protests - the White House says he "rightfully stepped in to restore law and order". The action is in response to the administration's extraordinary deployment of the National Guard to confront immigration protesters who took to the streets in Los Angeles. 'Commandeering a state's National Guard without consulting the Governor of that state is illegal and immoral,' Newsom, a Democrat, told MSNBC on Sunday. Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other Democrats have argued Trump's deployment of the National Guard was an unnecessary escalation, while Trump administration officials have railed against their leadership. ALSO READ: Los Angeles protest: Journalist shot at during live broadcast in harrowing moment caught on camera Protests in California The streets of the vast city, home to 4 million residents, remained largely quiet Monday morning—just a day after massive crowds shut down a major freeway and set self-driving cars ablaze. Law enforcement had responded forcefully, deploying tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash-bang grenades. Sunday marked the third—and most intense—day of protests against Trump's immigration crackdown in the region. Demonstrations erupted across several downtown blocks and a few other locations, fueled by the arrival of roughly 300 National Guard troops, which triggered fear and outrage among many locals. Live Events As night fell, authorities declared the gathering an unlawful assembly, prompting many protesters to leave. But some remained behind makeshift barricades, throwing objects at officers. Others hurled concrete chunks, rocks, electric scooters, and fireworks at California Highway Patrol units stationed on the closed southbound 101 Freeway. At one point, officers were forced to take cover beneath an overpass. On Saturday, Trump signed a memorandum calling in the National Guard — despite opposition from the state's and the city's Democratic leadership. Newsom, after saying Sunday that the Golden State would be taking Trump to court, wrote in a Monday X post that the president had "flamed the fires." ALSO READ: California unrest: How Los Angeles immigration protests turned ugly after citywide ICE operations He added, "The order he signed doesn't just apply to CA. It will allow him to go into ANY STATE and do the same thing. We're suing him. Trump's order cited "[n]umerous incidents of violence and disorder" and "violent protests" but did not specifically mention California or the Los Angeles area. "Gavin Newsom's feckless leadership is directly responsible for the lawless riots and violent attacks on law enforcement in Los Angeles," White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement provided to Axios. Jackson continued, "Instead of filing baseless lawsuits meant to score political points with his left-wing base, Newsom should focus on protecting Americans by restoring law and order to his state."

Kamala Harris won the U.S elections: Bombshell report claims voting machines were tampered with before 2024
Kamala Harris won the U.S elections: Bombshell report claims voting machines were tampered with before 2024

Time of India

time2 hours ago

  • Time of India

Kamala Harris won the U.S elections: Bombshell report claims voting machines were tampered with before 2024

Kamala Harris won the U.S. elections: Bombshell report claims voting machines were tampered with before 2024: A new report is stirring fresh debate about the outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, claiming that voting machines were secretly altered before ballots were even cast. The bombshell allegation raises a serious question: Did Kamala Harris actually win the 2024 election ? According to the investigative piece from Daily Boulder, a private lab quietly implemented sweeping changes to voting machines used in over 40% of U.S. counties ahead of the 2024 race. Those changes, the report claims, were made with no public notice, no formal testing, and no third-party oversight. What changes were made to voting machines before the 2024 election? The report centers around Pro V&V, a federally accredited lab responsible for certifying voting machines in key states like Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, and California. In early 2024, the lab reportedly approved updates to ES&S voting systems, which included: New ballot scanners Printer reconfigurations Firmware upgrades A new Electionware reporting system Instead of labeling these as major changes, Pro V&V classified them as 'de minimis,' a term typically reserved for insignificant tweaks. This classification allowed them to bypass public scrutiny and avoid triggering full-scale testing or certification processes. But watchdog group SMART Elections wasn't convinced. In their words: Live Events 'This wasn't just a glitch in some sleepy county. It was a stress test of our entire system.' Soon after the machines went live, complaints began to surface. Were votes miscounted or ignored in key counties? In Rockland County, New York, several voters testified under oath that their ballots didn't match the official results. Senate candidate Diane Sare reportedly lost votes in precinct after precinct: In one district, 9 voters claimed they voted for Sare, but only 5 votes were recorded. In another, 5 voters swore they supported her, but only 3 votes appeared. It wasn't just third-party candidates who saw odd results. In multiple Democratic-leaning areas, Kamala Harris's name was reportedly missing from the top of the ballot entirely. Voters said they couldn't even find her name to select. These same areas had high support for Democrats like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, yet Harris received zero votes—a statistical anomaly that defies traditional voting patterns. Even more shocking: Donald Trump received 750,000 more votes than Republican Senate candidates in these districts. As reported by Dissent in Bloom, a political Substack, 'That's not split-ticket voting. That's a mathematical anomaly.' Who is behind Pro V&V, and why is there no oversight? At the center of the controversy is Jack Cobb, the director of Pro V&V. While he doesn't appear in the headlines, his lab certifies the machines that millions of Americans use to vote. According to the report, once the controversy began to gain traction, Pro V&V's website went dark, leaving only a phone number and a generic email address. No public logs. No documentation. No comment. Pro V&V is certified by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). However, once accredited, labs like Pro V&V face no real public oversight. There is no hotline, no review board, and no formal process for the public to challenge or remove them. The EAC itself has four commissioners, two of whom—Benjamin Hovland and Donald Palmer—were appointed by Donald Trump during his first presidency. Even if wrongdoing were discovered, the process to revoke a lab's accreditation is slow, murky, and entirely internal. There are no public hearings and no outside investigations. As of June 2025, Pro V&V remains fully accredited and uninvestigated. Could Kamala Harris have actually won the election? The question is no longer whispered in political corners—it's being asked outright. In May 2025, Judge Rachel Tanguay ruled that allegations raised by SMART Elections were credible enough to move forward. The case, SMART Legislation et al. v. Rockland County Board of Elections , is scheduled for hearing this fall. While the lawsuit won't change the outcome of the election—Congress already certified Trump's victory—it could set off wider probes, from state investigations to federal criminal inquiries. Political writer John Pavlovitz openly questioned the result, writing: 'Kamala Harris may have won.' During the campaign, Harris reportedly drew massive crowds, high early voting numbers, and strong poll performances in swing states. Her debate showing against Trump was widely viewed as dominant—Trump even skipped the second debate. And yet, despite that momentum, Trump won. Adding fuel to the fire, Elon Musk, who vocally supported Trump, posted cryptic tweets during the 2024 cycle, including: 'Anything can be hacked.' Later, Musk stated: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election.' Trump himself added to the speculation, telling supporters: 'He [Musk] knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide.' The upcoming court case could become a pivotal moment in election security history. The lawsuit claims that a private company quietly changed voting machines in over 40% of U.S. counties—and no one knew until after the votes were counted. The implications are serious: Could future elections be altered without oversight? Should the EAC change how it certifies and monitors voting labs? Is the public being kept in the dark about the technology behind their vote? SMART Elections warns this isn't just about one race: 'If one underfunded watchdog group can dig up this much from a quiet New York suburb, what else is rotting in the shadows of this country's ballots?'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store