The regulatory spotlight on personalized pricing just got brighter. Earlier this week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) launched a wide-ranging inquiry into how major companies use personal data to determine both what consumers pay and what workers are paid.
On October 28, 2026, the FTC issued orders under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act (6(b) Orders) to nine companies across the airline, ride-sharing, delivery and retail industries, directing the companies to provide information about their use of personal data in setting prices and compensation. The companies have 45 days from receipt of the orders to respond. This latest action follows the FTC’s proposed enforcement policy statement, issued in August (which we previously covered here), which warned that undisclosed use of personal data by businesses to set prices may constitute an unfair or deceptive practice.
What Is the FTC Looking For?
The scope of the inquiry is extensive. The agency says it wants to understand whether pricing varies from person to person based on factors such as loyalty-program participation or analysis of personal data, and whether worker compensation may similarly be influenced by personal data.
And the requests go deep. The FTC Special Order seeks details on methodologies used for pricing, job assignments and worker compensation, including the personal-information inputs involved, the tools and software used, how those inputs affect outcomes, circumstances in which outputs are overridden, A/B testing, and disclosures to consumers and workers.
A Broader Focus on Personalized Pricing
The FTC’s inquiry comes as states are increasingly regulating personalized or “surveillance” pricing. As we previously discussed, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland have each enacted restrictions on certain uses of consumer data in pricing, while New York already requires disclosures for certain algorithmic personalized-pricing practices.
The FTC has not explained why it selected the target companies, and their inclusion in the study should not be read as an allegation of wrongdoing. But for at least three of the nine recipients, there is some history that may help explain why their pricing practices attracted attention beyond their status as household names. Target previously settled a California enforcement action involving allegations that its app used consumers’ locations to change displayed prices. Instacart recently faced scrutiny after a consumer group study reported that different shoppers were shown different prices for the same grocery products as part of pricing tests that retailers could elect to run on the platform (although Instacart disputed that these practices constituted personalized or “surveillance” pricing). And JetBlue is currently defending a putative class action alleging that it used consumers’ behavioral information to set ticket prices based on perceived willingness to pay, allegations JetBlue denies.
Key Takeaways
These developments highlight an important distinction: Different prices are not necessarily personalized prices. Airline fares, ride-sharing prices, delivery charges, and retail prices can change for many reasons, including supply and demand, inventory, and other legitimate business factors. What has generated greater regulatory and public concern is the prospect that a price may change based on who the consumer is, what the consumer has searched for, what a company knows about the consumer, or what an algorithm predicts that consumer is willing to pay.
That distinction is also reflected in the emerging state-law landscape. As we previously explained, lawmakers have generally sought to preserve familiar discounts, loyalty programs, and price differences tied to legitimate business factors (such as geography or supply/demand) while simultaneously restricting certain uses of consumer data in pricing.
The FTC’s latest inquiry reinforces a developing regulatory theme: Businesses using personal data to make individualized economic decisions should be prepared to explain not only what data they use, but also how that data affects the ultimate outcome.
The FTC’s study puts an increasingly important question front and center: Why did this consumer see this price? For companies using sophisticated pricing technologies, answering that question may require understanding not only their pricing rules, but also the consumer data that enters those systems, the contributions of third-party vendors, and whether company disclosures accurately describe how that data is used. Combined with state legislation, public scrutiny, and emerging private litigation, the FTC’s study is another reminder that businesses should understand what is happening inside their pricing systems before a regulator, plaintiff, or consumer group asks them to explain it.
