Insights

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.

On July 22, 2026, Missouri Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Kansas City, Missouri, challenging the city’s longstanding Minority and Women Business Enterprise (MWBE) program as unconstitutional. The AG filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri alongside private plaintiffs Charles Cacioppo Jr. and his company, Industrial Salvage and Wrecking Co.

On July 20, 2026, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed the Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act into law, making New Jersey the fourth state to regulate algorithmic rent-setting practices. Three days later, on July 23, 2026, Governor Sherrill signed the Fair Price Protection Act, which targets “surveillance pricing”—the practice of using or collecting personal data about a user and using an algorithm or artificial intelligence to charge different consumers different prices for the same products. Together, these laws represent a significant expansion of New Jersey's consumer protection framework in the algorithmic pricing context.

New York is set to become the first state in the nation to restrict algorithmically-driven “addictive” social media features for users under 18. On July 29, 2026, the State published the final rules implementing the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act, which takes effect January 25, 2027.

A recent enforcement action led by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison along with a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general signals an accelerating and coordinated crackdown on competitively sensitive information-sharing arrangements.

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the FTC's Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Rule in January 2025 on procedural grounds, some dealers may have interpreted the decision as a signal that federal regulatory pressure on the auto industry had eased. Recent developments make clear that such optimism was misplaced.

On May 27, 2026, the California State Assembly advanced AB 2564, which would prohibit surveillance pricing by retailers. Assemblymember Christopher Ward originally introduced AB 2564 on February 20, 2026, to “ensure that people are not being unfairly charged higher prices due to their actual or perceived characteristics.”

Texas Attorney General (AG) Ken Paxton has embarked on an aggressive campaign of regulation through enforcement against some of the world’s largest technology companies.

In mid-April, a bipartisan coalition of 45 State Attorneys General (AG) submitted a formal letter to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) expressing their collective support for a proposed rule (Improving Transparency into Pharmacy Benefit Manager Fee Disclosure, or RIN 1210-AB37), which would — if enacted — impose new disclosure obligations on pharmacy benefit managers (PBM) regulated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On April 16, 2026, a complaint alleging a putative class and collective action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that a property management company violated Illinois’ biometric privacy law through the use of its biometric timekeeping software. The complaint, which begins with the statement that “[t]his is a wage theft and privacy case,” emphasizes the legal risks that may arise when employers deploy biometric timekeeping technology without adequate compliance measures, particularly in Illinois, one of the most employee-protective states for biometric privacy claims.

On March 12, 2026, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) took formal steps toward establishing additional regulations for prediction markets. The agency issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting public input on potential new rules, and separately, released staff guidance outlining its views on how existing rules apply to prediction market platforms currently in operation. These developments signal a significant shift in the regulatory landscape for an industry that has grown rapidly over the past year.

The New Jersey Legislature is considering two bills, that if enacted, would prohibit business entities from using either consumers' personal data or “personalized algorithmic pricing” to set prices for merchandise or services, including groceries. If enacted, the new laws would have broad implications for companies across industries that rely on algorithmic or data-informed pricing strategies. In her recent State Budget Address, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill pledged to sign the proposals into law if they reach her desk.

While state attorneys general have traditionally led consumer protection enforcement, local governments are increasingly deploying their own powers to prosecute high-stakes affirmative litigation. The results speak for themselves: Los Angeles and Chicago have secured multi-million-dollar judgments and settlements in consumer deception cases over the past decade.

Utah Attorney General Derek Brown (R) and North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson (D) have announced a nationwide bipartisan “AI Task Force,” in partnership with major AI developers (including OpenAI and Microsoft) and the Attorney General Alliance (AGA), a bipartisan nonprofit that serves as a forum for attorneys general around the United States to discuss and collaborate on policy and enforcement initiatives.

Election Day 2025 included two high-profile elections that determined who will serve as the next state attorney general for the Commonwealth of Virginia and for the State of New Jersey. Former Virginia Delegate Jay Jones, a Democrat, was elected the next Virginia Attorney General and in New Jersey, Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat, was elected New Jersey’s next governor. Governor-Elect Sherrill is expected to appoint a Democrat as the next New Jersey Attorney General.

On September 9, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction as to certain provisions of California’s Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act. This interlocutory ruling is significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates why and how state laws can withstand and avoid First Amendment challenges. Second, it showcases the potential difficulties in establishing associational standing on behalf of member technology and digital commerce companies.

On August 8, 2025, the Attorneys General of 23 Republican-led U.S. states (the “AGs”) sent a letter to Science Based Targets Initiative (“SBTi”), a U.K. non-profit climate organization, expressing concern with the SBTi’s climate initiatives.[1]SBTi had previously received a subpoena from Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in connection with his office’s investigation into what he described as a “climate cartel,” which he alleges includes SBTi and CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project).[2]

On June 25, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the agenda for its July 9, 2025 Workshop exploring the characterization of gender-affirming health care as involving consumer deception or unfair trade practices. Health care providers, plans, and related businesses should anticipate that investigations and lawsuits related to gender-affirming care will follow under federal unfair competition law and, perhaps first, under state unfair trade practices laws.

The Fifth Circuit vacated the FTC’s Combatting Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Rule in January of this year, finding that the FTC failed to follow the correct administrative procedures when it promulgated the regulation.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement has been fairly predictable for many years as the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has maintained exclusive authority over investigating claims and bringing enforcement actions in federal courts across the country. President Trump’s recent pause on FCPA enforcement, the first of its kind since the statute was passed in 1977, has created significant uncertainty for individuals and businesses operating internationally regarding the future of FCPA enforcement. While DOJ is in the process of assessing what the future of FCPA enforcement, state attorneys general are stepping in. On April 2, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a Legal Advisory (the “Advisory”) to California businesses explaining that violations of the FCPA are actionable under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The announcement signals a shift in FCPA enforcement where states may take the lead and pursue FCPA enforcement through their state unfair competition laws.