Marketers have extensive data on consumers used to enhance value for consumers. However, the same segmenting, targeting, and positioning practices that provide value for unique, specific consumers, can also create the conditions to discriminate against groups with any given characteristic. In this research I examine this tension by unpacking contexts surrounding (a) who feels discriminated against in response to contrasting marketplace treatment and (b) who is still overlooked, despite all marketers seem to know about consumers. Specifically, in Chapter 1 I examine how men’s and women’s responses to the common practice of gender-based price variation differ. I find that women view higher prices for themselves as signals of gender discrimination that are unfair, which negatively impacts many brand outcomes (i.e., choice, purchase likelihood, competitor patronage). In contrast, men are less attuned to the prices as signals of gender discrimination because they are more likely to endorse free market principles, and so their perceived price unfairness and subsequent brand responses are not as negatively impacted. I find that these effects persist across utilitarian and hedonic items, across products, services, and experiences, across temporary and permanent price differences, and is specific to gender-based price variation, not gendering alone or price differences alone. In Chapter 2, I examine marketplace stereotypes of people with disabilities, an understudied group despite being the largest global minority. In this research, I reveal the disability preference stereotype, the inference that individuals with disabilities prefer utilitarian, over hedonic items, even though hedonic enjoyment is important to the well-being commonly sought as part of the human experience. These inferred preferences are misaligned with the actual preferences of disabled consumers. This bias occurs even when observers are informed that the product is a gift, when provided substantial information about the target consumer’s hedonic interests, and when the items are completely unrelated to disability (e.g., a documentary versus reality television streaming channel). This suppression of hedonic interests and pursuits can be mitigated if the target’s perceived need for support is attenuated through improvements in environmental accessibility.