Regulation / Privacy / Metadata
FTC weighs personalised pricing policy as state algorithmic pricing laws diverge
The FTC's draft enforcement statement says undisclosed use of personal data to set prices could breach the FTC Act, while four states and Seattle already apply differing bans and disclosure rules.
The US Federal Trade Commission has proposed an enforcement policy statement on personalised pricing, defined as using personal data to set prices according to what a company believes an individual will pay. The draft says that undisclosed collection or use of personal data for this purpose could be an unfair or deceptive practice under the FTC Act. The Commission voted 2-0 to publish it for comment.
According to Covington’s Inside Privacy, the draft drew more than 4,500 comments, many questioning whether it separates individualised price increases from discounts and loyalty programmes. On 28 October 2026 the FTC also announced a market study on whether firms use personal data to set pricing and pay.
The statement is not final. Meanwhile New Jersey, Maryland and Seattle have sector-specific bans, New York requires disclosure, and Connecticut combines a ban with a mandated disclosure where exceptions apply.
Why it matters
Compliance depends on knowing exactly which personal data feeds pricing algorithms, so data owners need lineage from customer attributes to price outputs and a clear record of the purposes for which that data is used. Teams should map pricing flows by jurisdiction, since discount exceptions differ and Connecticut prescribes specific disclosure wording. Marketing collateral implying static prices should be reviewed against the FTC's view that such representations can mislead.
Status: Proposal. Comment period closed; FTC has not finalised the policy statement
What to check
- Identify which pricing, coupon and loyalty systems use personal data to vary prices for individual consumers and document the data inputs.
- Check whether you operate grocery, food retail or delivery services in New Jersey, Maryland, Seattle or Connecticut, where specific bans apply.
- Review whether customer-facing materials imply a price is the same for everyone when it in fact varies by individual.
Sources
Was this useful?
Thanks. What was the problem?
Thank you — this helps us choose what to cover. If you spotted an error, please tell us what it is.
Prepared with AI assistance and reviewed by the editor before publication. Spotted an error? Tell us — see our editorial policy and methodology.
Governance areas
Legislation tracker
- FTC personalised pricing statementNegotiation · 1 story
Institutions
Who should care
- DPO
- Legal & compliance
- Data stewards
- CDO