On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) released a proposed enforcement policy statement addressing personalized pricing. The draft says that when consumers reasonably expect a non-personalized price, a business using personal data to set an individualized price should clearly and conspicuously disclose that the price is personalized, the basis for the personalization, and the types of data used.

The FTC’s proposed enforcement position is that failing to make those disclosures is likely to be unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The draft does not itself ban personalized pricing, is not a final rule, and is not a finding that any identified company violated the law.

What Is Personalized Pricing?

Personalized pricing occurs when a business uses data connected to a particular consumer to determine the price offered to that consumer. The FTC’s proposal focuses on markets in which consumers reasonably expect that people shopping at the same place and time will see the same price.

That is different from ordinary price changes that apply broadly because of supply and demand, regional taxes, market conditions, or characteristics intrinsic to the transaction. The proposal also recognizes that individualized pricing is an established feature of some markets, including credit and insurance, where price can depend on a consumer’s individual risk characteristics.

What Does the Draft Say Businesses Should Disclose?

The draft describes the FTC’s proposed approach to enforcing existing law; it does not create a new disclosure rule by itself. Under that approach, an effective disclosure should be clear and conspicuous and explain:

• That the displayed price is personalized;
• Why or on what basis the price was personalized; and
• The types of personal data used to generate the price.

The FTC indicates that vague language—such as saying only that a consumer received a “specially selected” price—would likely be misleading if it omits important information. The FTC also states that collecting, using, or disclosing personal data for personalized pricing without adequate disclosure or consent may violate Section 5, and that using personal data without sufficiently verifying consent for that pricing purpose may also violate Section 5.

Examples Identified by the FTC

The proposed statement gives non-exhaustive, discussion-only examples of undisclosed personalized pricing that could raise Section 5 concerns, including a business charging more because data suggests that a consumer:

• Cannot easily leave home to buy food or has children in the household;
• Is traveling for a funeral or another can’t-miss personal obligation;
• Does not have a rideshare competitor’s app installed;
• Needs transportation to a medical facility for a serious emergency;
• Recently experienced a crime and is shopping for home-security equipment; or
• Is physically inside a retailer’s store or parking lot while browsing the retailer’s website.

Why the Proposal Matters to Consumers

A consumer who does not know that a price is personalized may be unable to comparison-shop effectively, correct inaccurate data, change the behavior triggering a higher price, limit future data collection, or decline the transaction. The FTC states that a higher concealed personalized price may constitute substantial injury that consumers cannot reasonably avoid.

For consumers, the proposal creates a practical investigation screen across online retail, grocery and food delivery, travel and lodging, rideshare services, ticketing, and other platforms using algorithmic pricing. Relevant questions include whether similarly situated consumers saw different prices, whether the difference was tied to personal data, what the business disclosed, and whether the consumer paid more as a result.

Limitations of the FTC’s Personalized Pricing Proposal

The FTC’s August 19 document is a proposed enforcement policy statement—not a ban on personalized pricing, a final policy statement, a rule, or an accusation against any particular business. The FTC states that Congress has not authorized it to prohibit personalized pricing outright; instead, the draft explains how undisclosed or misleading practices associated with personalized pricing may violate existing federal law.

The proposal remains subject to public comment, with a 30-day comment period beginning upon publication in the Federal Register, and the FTC may revise it following that process. Its examples are hypothetical and non-exhaustive, not findings of liability. Likewise, seeing different prices does not by itself establish that unlawful personalized pricing occurred.

Evaluating a potential matter would require examining whether personal data caused the difference, whether consumers reasonably expected a non-personalized price, what disclosures were made, whether the challenged price was paid, and what federal or state laws apply. The proposed statement expressly provides that it confers no rights, does not bind the FTC or the public, and would not relieve the FTC of proving a violation of an existing statute or regulation in any enforcement action.

Sources:

FTC Proposed Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Personalized Pricing (PDF)

Associated Press: “FTC proposal would require retailers to be transparent about personalized pricing”

FTC press release: “FTC Seeks Comment on Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Personalized Pricing”

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. 

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.