The Federal Trade Commission announced on 19 August 2026 that it is seeking public comment on a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement regarding so-called “personalized pricing.”
Personalised pricing refers to the practice of using consumers’ personal data, such as inferred income, household size, and composition, to tailor the prices offered to individual shoppers.
The Statement is grounded in the FTC’s broad assertion that consumers hold a “reasonable expectation[] that the price they see for a product or service is the same price that any other consumer at the same place and time would see.”
The FTC acknowledges that consumers may expect some price variation based on supply and demand, regional differences, or consumer risk in certain contexts.
However, the agency argues that many consumers do not understand the extent of data they generate or how it can be used against them when they shop.
The FTC states it “intends to enforce the law aggressively against any deceptive or unfair personalized pricing practices that violate Section 5 of the FTC Act or any other law enforced by the Commission.”
The Statement focuses heavily on how inadequate disclosures related to personalised pricing can constitute a deceptive or unfair practice, including failing to seek consent for using consumer data to set prices.
Notably, the FTC stopped short of declaring a categorical ban, with the agency explicitly acknowledging that “Congress has not given the Commission the authority to prohibit personalized pricing in all circumstances.”
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson elaborated on this point, stating: “The FTC does not have the legal authority to ban personalized pricing in all circumstances, but businesses that fail to tell consumers how their personal data is being used to set a price may be in violation of the FTC Act and other laws we enforce.”
Ferguson added: “When consumers see a listed price, they expect it to be same price that everyone else sees, not the retailer’s estimate of how much they are willing to pay based on their personal data.”
Crucially, the FTC did not take a position on whether personalised pricing could be considered unfair even when fully disclosed, leaving open the door for future enforcement actions even where disclosure has been provided.
The proposal arrives just two weeks after the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing entitled “Your Data, Their Profit: The Consumer Cost of AI Surveillance Pricing,” where senators from both parties raised concerns about using personal data to determine what individual consumers pay.
Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey have all enacted laws this year restricting the use of personal data to set individualised prices, with lawmakers in numerous other states considering similar legislation.
The FTC’s approach is considered narrower than some of these state laws and proposed federal legislation currently under discussion in Congress.
Companies, particularly retailers and businesses supplying everyday necessities such as food, housing, transportation, and healthcare, are being urged to review their pricing practices closely in light of these developments.
Once the Statement is published in the Federal Register, the public will have 30 days to submit comments to the Commission.