Priced Out, Pushed Out: Electronic Shelf Labels Raise Prices and Shrink Paychecks

September 8, 2026 | Sunny Glottmann & Kimberly Cosby

Executive Summary

Grocery prices keep climbing, and working families are running out of room to absorb the increases. Electronic shelf labels (ESLs) threaten to make the problem worse. These digital price tags link store shelves to the same kind of pricing systems, used online by retailers, where numerous studies have found evidence of dynamic pricing and surveillance pricing. As grocery chains race to install ESLs nationwide, policymakers face a narrowing window to stop retailers from deploying predatory online pricing tactics in physical stores and protecting workers from billions of dollars in lost wages.

ESL makers market their products as a win for everyone: more accurate prices, less food waste, and freed-up workers who can spend more time helping customers. The evidence tells a different story. ESLs make it easier for retailers to rapidly increase prices for goods hundreds, or thousands, of times in a given day, and could potentially allow retailers to target individual shoppers using data collected without their knowledge. ESLs can connect to the same algorithmic pricing software that lets online retailers engage in surveillance pricing: charging different customers different prices for the same products. Widespread adoption of this technology can open the door to similarly volatile pricing in brick-and-mortar grocery stores.

At the same time, ESL manufacturers sell their products to retailers as a way to cut labor costs, not redeploy workers. A new AFL-CIO Tech Institute analysis of ESL manufacturers' own marketing materials shows that universal adoption of ESLs in U.S. grocery stores could cost workers between $1.6 billion and $6.9 billion in lost wages annually, and impact between 44,223 and 191,633 jobs.

Policymakers should ban ESLs outright, rather than rely on narrower disclosure or dynamic-pricing laws that leave the underlying technology in place. New Jersey's Fair Price Protection Act is a good starting place: it temporarily bans ESLs in retail food stores and prohibits pricing based on consumer surveillance data. Only a ban protects consumers and workers alike.

Introduction

Grocery prices have been on the rise for the last several years. As food prices continue to surge, Americans are forced to make tough choices about how they spend their money. A survey conducted by the Century Foundation found that nearly two-thirds of Americans cannot afford the basic building blocks of a healthy, stable life, leading them to either switch to cheaper groceries or buy less food altogether. Consumers attribute unexpected budget changes to rising grocery bills and less certainty around their monthly food expenses. New technologies are making it easier than ever for grocery stores — whether a customer is shopping on their phone or at the store — to raise prices. If policymakers want to ease the stress being placed on American wallets, they must acknowledge the contributing factors and take action to stop the problem.

One contributing factor to the rising costs of groceries is algorithmic pricing — the process of using automated algorithms to set or recommend prices for products or services. A study by Consumer Reports and Groundwork Collaborative found that Instacart was engaging in surveillance pricing — charging consumers different prices for the same goods. Roughly 75% of the products reviewed had inconsistent pricing across customers. The app displayed up to five distinct price points for some items, with gaps between the highest and lowest price for a given product ranging from just 7 cents to as much as $2.56. After being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission and facing public outcry, Instacart discontinued using its Eversight pricing tool which allowed them to charge customers varying prices.

While Instacart said it will no longer use the technology that allowed different customers to be charged different prices, several other major retailers have deployed similar pricing strategies. Without legal safeguards and oversight, the use of electronic shelf labels (ESLs) will continue to pose threats to consumers. This technology can be connected to similar algorithmic pricing tools — potentially exposing consumers to similar surveillance pricing practices in brick-and-mortar stores. ESLs are digital price tags that can connect to pricing systems powered by AI, enabling stores to change prices similar to how stores use AI to change prices online. ESL makers argue that their products lead to more accurate pricing and reduce food waste, but their arguments ignore the harms ESLs pose to consumers when used for predatory practices. ESLs not only lead to less predictable and potentially higher prices, but can also be used as a tool to automate work and replace workers, making the shopping experience worse for consumers and costing workers their livelihoods.

What is an electronic shelf label?

Electronic shelf labels, also called digital shelf labels, are any electronic, wireless, or paperless displays that present product and pricing information. ESLs allow retailers to change the prices of goods with the push of a button instead of using human labor to individually change the paper price tags commonly found on items and store shelves. ESLs are typically connected to a central database or control system through wireless networks which allow product prices and information to be updated instantaneously. In addition to displaying prices and product information, ESLs can be used to display promotional discounts, stock levels, and QR codes that link to product descriptions and reviews.

Electronic shelf labels were created in the early 1990s, but paper price tags remained the staple in grocery stores. However, in the 2010s, ESLs began gaining popularity in European markets, especially in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. In the U.S., national retailers including Kroger, Aldi, and Whole Foods have already installed ESLs across thousands of stores. Walmart has deployed ESLs in 2,300 of its 5,200 U.S. locations, and has announced plans to fully implement ESLs in all of their stores by the end of 2026.

ESLs integrated into AI pricing tools

ESLs are typically marketed to retailers as a way to increase price accuracy while reducing errors and reducing labor costs. Because of the technology's ability to integrate with a Point of Sale system, retailers argue that introducing ESLs to their stores will simplify inventory management and provide consistent pricing. By automating product price labels, ESL makers claim the technology's intended use is to minimize waste and maximize sales by quickly lowering prices on perishable goods near their expiration date. The company's marketing materials tell a different story: ESLs reduce wages and make it easier to integrate algorithmic pricing systems into brick-and-mortar retail.

ESL producers tout dynamic pricing as a key feature of their products. Under this pricing strategy, prices rise and fall continuously based on external factors, like market demand, scarcity, competitor supply, or customer need. In effect, businesses employ dynamic pricing strategies to raise prices on goods when people really need them. More sophisticated methods of data collection make it easier than ever for retailers to gauge demand, inventory, competitor actions, and other market signals. Pricer, a leading ESL manufacturer, advertised that ESLs could be used to allow retailers to quickly implement price changes during specific times of the day. Once implemented in a store, price fluctuations become the norm. For instance, at a Norwegian grocery chain that was an early adopter of ESLs, prices now change up to 2,000 times in a single day. In effect, this technology allows stores to conduct the same dubious pricing strategies in-store that they have been doing online.

Similarly, another ESL manufacturer, ComQi, markets how retailers can increase profits by raising prices during peak shopping times or in response to a competitor's out-of-stock situation. For example, coffee could be more expensive in the morning, or allergy medications can be more expensive when pollen levels increase. When companies can access consumers' data, they have greater visibility into what an individual shopper needs and the maximum amount of money they are willing to spend for it. Prices no longer track the market value of goods; instead they surge whenever there is greater need for a particular product.

Despite industry claims that ESLs benefit customers and retailers alike by making price setting easier and more accurate, ESLs are connected to the same or similar algorithmic pricing software used on mobile shopping apps and other online retail platforms. ESLs do not operate in a vacuum; they connect to cloud pricing platforms and can be paired with price optimization software. AI-enabled price optimization tools use real-time market data like customer demographic, behavioral and geographic data, competitor prices, and current demand to set the highest price to charge consumers. The ability to change prices instantly can make it easier for grocery stores to sneak prices up little by little. This pricing strategy has nothing to do with the value of a product and everything to do with maximizing profits.

ESLs are also potentially capable of personalized advertising. Connected to smart devices, retailers could use ESLs to interact with customers' smartphones, offering personalized offers, which can be a euphemism for surveillance pricing, and product information when a customer is near a particular product. This personalization relies on real-time data from loyalty programs and foot traffic analytics. Even though customers often agree to share some data with retailers to join a loyalty program, they are typically unaware of the magnitude of data collected, how their data is being used, or whether their data is being sold to third parties. In addition to collecting data from individuals' behavior online and in-store, retailers and the algorithmic pricing software companies buy and sell data from data brokers that collect, package, and sell information about people.

ESLs are marketed to automate work

Electronic shelf labels are not only harmful to consumers, they can also be detrimental to workers. Some ESLs keep track of shelf inventory, which dictates when and how often workers must restock shelves. This type of algorithmic management, where technology is used to assign work, could result in work intensification and burnout, creating unsafe working conditions. The marketing materials also claim that workers will have more time to assist customers once they are no longer required to change shelf labels. However, there is no evidence supporting the claim that when ESLs are brought into stores workers perform more customer-facing tasks. The implementation of self-checkout kiosks provides evidence of the opposite. Many retailers chose to cut staff after introducing self-checkout kiosks, leading to messier stores, shelves going unstocked for longer, customers having a harder time finding someone to help them, increased theft, and even harm to workers. Based on past actions, one could expect similar staff reduction actions after the mass implementation of ESLs.

The marketing to grocery stores makes clear—these are automating technologies, intended to reduce workers' hours, leading to smaller paychecks. For example, ESL company Pricer markets its products by claiming that East of England Co-op, a UK business, was on track to cut £1,000,000 in workers' wages and benefits in the first year of ESL use. If retailers choose to automate inventory management and product labeling as a way to cut worker hours, this will lead to job loss and/or smaller paychecks for hardworking retail employees.

Universal adoption of ESLs could cost grocery workers billions in lost wages and jobs

ESL producers' marketing claims the technology will drastically cut operating costs for grocery stores, and they often assert those savings will come out of workers' paychecks. The AFL-CIO Tech Institute analyzed Pricer and Vusion's marketing claims to calculate the impact of ESL adoption on workers' hours, wages, and jobs. Universal adoption of ESLs in U.S. grocery stores could cut 71 million hours (Vusion) to 307 million hours (Pricer) from grocery workers' schedules annually (see Appendix A). That is $1.6 billion to $6.9 billion in lost wages annually (see Appendix B), or $608 per worker by Vusion's claims and $2,633 with Pricer's. For perspective, median rent in America was $1,413 in 2024. Under Pricer's projections, a grocery worker loses nearly two months' rent in wages every year.

Reduced hours hurt more than workers' wallets. When grocery stores substitute human work with ESLs, fewer workers are in the store—making the shopping experience materially worse for customers. For example, having fewer workers to restock shelves will make products less readily available to customers. In addition, having fewer workers will place greater demands on the remaining workers, increasing their workload and reducing the amount of time they are available to help customers locate items in the store or answer questions about products. Reduced worker availability is also a safety concern since workers also clear spills, remove obstructions from the aisles, deter theft, and perform other essential safety tasks. When customers enter a grocery store, the shopping experience is largely dependent on the availability of goods, ease of navigating the store, and cleanliness of the store. This human element of grocery shopping is what makes the difference between a pleasant experience and a frustrating experience.

Policymakers Must Ban ESLs

The rising cost of groceries is making it harder for working families to pay for food and the implementation of AI-enabled technology is exacerbating the problem. At the same time, workers are experiencing increased uncertainty about their pay, work hours, and job quality. To protect consumers and workers from further unnecessary harm, policymakers should take decisive action to stop retailers from relying on predatory practices. New Jersey's Fair Price Protection Act takes steps to achieve these goals by not only banning retail food stores from using new ESLs while regulators study their use, but also prohibiting retailers from setting prices based on consumer surveillance data. However, this is just a one-year moratorium on new ESLs, not a complete ban. New York's state legislature has taken steps toward protecting consumers by passing legislation requiring businesses to disclose when personal data is being used to set prices and outlawing the use of surveillance pricing on essential goods, but that bill has not been finalized into law and does not prohibit retailers from implementing ESL technology in their stores. The only way to truly protect consumers and workers is to completely ban the tool being used to harm them.

Methodology

This analysis projects how universal adoption of electronic shelf labels (ESLs) would affect grocery workers' hours, jobs, and wages. We take the labor savings that two leading ESL manufacturers claim in their own marketing and apply those claims to every grocery store in the U.S.

Pricer commissioned Forrester Consulting to conduct a Total Economic Impact study, published in December 2022. Forrester interviewed employees at stores using Pricer ESLs and found that a store changing prices 3,000 times a week reduces 5,200 worker hours per year by automating those price changes. Vusion published a white paper in May 2024 reporting on a single store, Kavanagh's Belsize Park in London. Vusion credits digital shelf technology with reducing 600 worker hours on ticket changes and promotional setup over six months in 2023. We double that figure to 1,200 hours to put it on an annual basis.

We multiply each manufacturer's per-store annual reduced hours' claim by the number of U.S. grocery store establishments to estimate total hours lost, then repeat the calculation state by state. Establishment counts come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), fourth quarter 2025, for private-sector supermarkets and other grocery retailers (NAICS 44511).

Counted establishments are limited to businesses that are classified as grocery stores. Many stores where people do their grocery shopping are classified under different NAICS codes, including as general merchandise retailers, e.g. Dollar Tree or Dollar General, or department stores. Because many stores that sell groceries are not classified by the NAICS system as grocery stores, this analysis does not fully capture the grocery retail market. Walmart, a leading ESL adopter, accounts for approximately 20% of the U.S. grocery market. Because it is classified by the NAICS systems as a department store and general merchandise retailer, Walmart stores are not included in the establishment counts. Many Americans shop for groceries at grocery stores not coded as supermarkets and grocery retailers, hence these estimates of workers' hours, wages, and jobs might not be a full accounting of all impacted workers.

We divide BLS Industry Productivity hours worked for grocery stores by QCEW employment, fourth quarter 2025, in the same industry to estimate average annual hours worked per employee. We use the national estimate of average hours worked for state calculations.

QCEW reports average weekly wages, not hourly wages. We convert average annual hours per worker to the average weekly hours, then divide the QCEW average weekly wage by average weekly hours to derive an average hourly wage, both nationally and for each state.

We multiply projected lost hours by the corresponding average hourly wage to project lost wages. We assume employers convert fewer hours into reduced schedules rather than redeploying workers to other tasks. To the extent employers redeploy workers, projected wage losses would decrease.