FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know

On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement.

Background and Scope

There is growing concern from consumers, Congress, and state lawmakers that the sheer volume of data collected through modern technology is giving businesses the ability to personalize prices, discounts, and/or incentive programs, such as loyalty programs, for goods and services that traditionally did not vary from person to person. The data some companies use to do this can include details such as identities, interests, locations, credit histories, medical conditions, sexual interests, and religious and political views.

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson stated that while the FTC does not have the legal authority to ban personalized pricing in all circumstances, businesses that fail to tell consumers how their personal data is being used to set a price may be in violation of Section 5 and other laws the Commission enforces.

Legal Framework: When Personalized Pricing Violates Section 5 of the FTC Act

The proposed statement lays out when the FTC thinks personalized pricing goes too far.

• Deceptive Practices: Retailers may deceive consumers in violation of Section 5 when they tell consumers, directly or indirectly, that a price is the same for everyone when it’s actually tailored to them, or when a consumer reasonably believes that a price is static or widely offered and the merchant fails to disclose that the price is in fact personalized. Retailers may also violate Section 5 when they mislead consumers as to the basis for a personalized price, for example, when a consumer reasonably believes a personalized price reflects a discount based on purchase history when it actually reflects a higher price derived from data about the consumer’s disposable income or shopping habits with other firms. It’s also worth pointing out that the FTC isn’t just focused on whether companies inform consumers that they are being charged personalized prices or receive their consent. The FTC is also leaving the door open to go after personalized pricing more broadly, simply on the basis that it’s an unfair practice.
• Unfair Practices: Some companies charge consumers different prices based on what they know about them. When a company hides the fact that it’s doing this, and a customer ends up paying more than they otherwise would have — with no real way to know or avoid it — that can constitute an unfair business practice under Section 5. Notably, this theory could also reach loyalty programs that steer consumers toward purchasing behavior that results in systematically higher effective prices, even if every individual offer is technically disclosed.
• Data Practices: Businesses that collect, use, or disclose consumers’ personal data for the purpose of personalized pricing without adequate disclosures or without obtaining consent, or that base personalized prices on personal data without making sure consumers actually agreed to have their data used this way, may separately violate Section 5.

The proposed statement provides several concrete illustrations of conduct that would raise Section 5 concerns. These include: a food delivery company charging higher prices to consumers who data suggests are less likely to leave home; a grocery chain charging higher delivery prices based on the number of children in a household; a hotel charging more when data indicates a consumer is traveling for a funeral or other unavoidable personal reason; and a rideshare company charging more based on data suggesting the user has not installed any competitor apps or is traveling to a medical facility for a life-threatening condition.

Disclosure and Consent: To be compliant, personalized pricing disclosures must be clear and conspicuous and include all relevant information — specifically, the fact that the price is personalized, the basis of the personalization, and the types of data used. Vague language such as telling a consumer they are being shown a “specially selected” price would likely be deemed misleading because it omits important information.

Why “Proposed” Does Not Mean “Low-Risk”

The proposed policy statement should be read as a public signal that the FTC is prepared to bring enforcement actions under existing authority — not as an invitation to wait for the rulemaking process to conclude before taking action. Several factors underscore this reading:

• The FTC does not need to finalize a policy statement to bring a Section 5 enforcement action. The deception and unfairness theories articulated in the proposed statement rest on existing statutory authority.
• The statement was issued by the Trump administration, confirming that algorithmic pricing enforcement is a bipartisan priority. This removes any prior assumption that the current administration’s general deregulatory posture would provide a buffer in this specific area. State Attorneys General have been actively investigating this space, and several states have passed laws regarding surveillance pricing — the FTC’s proposed enforcement policy is likely to embolden even more state activity and scrutiny.
• Proposed policy statements of this nature typically precede a wave of enforcement letters to companies identified as engaged in the targeted practice.

Additionally, businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions should be aware of a key divergence in regulatory focus: while the FTC’s proposed enforcement policy focuses on disclosure, consent, and avoidance of personalized pricing that results in higher prices, several state laws and enforcement actions have instead focused on banning or limiting personalized pricing behavior outright — even when it results in lower prices or discounts. Companies should assess their practices against both federal and state-level standards accordingly.

Businesses engaged in any form of data-driven pricing—whether currently or prospectively—should treat this proposed statement as a serious warning signal. Now is the time to audit your pricing algorithms, data collection practices, and consumer-facing disclosures. The 30-day public comment window also provides an important opportunity to engage with the FTC and shape the final contours of this policy. Proactive legal review of your personalized pricing practices is essential before this statement takes effect.