FTC Proposes Personalized Pricing Enforcement Policy, Seeks Comment

FTC Proposes Personalized Pricing Enforcement Policy, Seeks Comment

On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission voted 2-0 to seek public comment on a proposed enforcement policy statement addressing personalized pricing, the use of a consumer's personal data to set an individualized price under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Information last verified on August 22, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: This is a PROPOSED enforcement policy statement. The FTC voted 2-0 on August 19, 2026 to release it for public comment under docket FTC-2026-1057. It has not been adopted, it is not a rule, and it creates no new legal obligation as of August 22, 2026. The Commission itself states the document "does not confer any rights on any person and does not operate to bind the FTC or the public."

Jurisdiction scope: This story covers a federal enforcement policy proposal from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, applicable nationwide under the FTC's Section 5 authority. It does not address state-level algorithmic or surveillance-pricing statutes, which vary by state and are outside the scope of this federal proposal.

What Happened

The Federal Trade Commission voted 2-0 on August 19, 2026 to seek public comment on a proposed enforcement policy statement titled "Federal Trade Commission's Proposed Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Personalized Pricing." The matter is docketed as FTC-2026-1057, and the comment period runs 30 days from the date the statement is published in the Federal Register.

The proposed statement defines the concern as businesses using "analysis of consumers' personal data and resulting conclusions, such as estimates of how much an individual consumer is willing to pay for a product," to set prices that differ from person to person. The Commission says this can run contrary to what it calls consumers' "reasonable expectations 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."

Chairman Andrew Ferguson was quoted in the FTC's press release announcing the proposal:

"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. 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. We are seeking public input on this draft statement, which would put businesses engaged in or considering personalized pricing on notice that the Trump-Vance FTC will not hesitate to enforce the law in this space."

The proposed statement itself is explicit that Congress has not authorized an outright ban. It reads: "Congress has not given the Commission the authority to prohibit personalized pricing in all circumstances, but the Commission 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."

What the Law Actually Says

The FTC's authority here is Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, which prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." The proposed statement applies that existing, decades-old standard to personalized pricing rather than proposing any new statute.

The proposal describes two theories a personalized pricing practice could violate. Under the deceptive-practices theory, a retailer deceives consumers when it represents, expressly or by implication, that a price is static or widely offered when it is actually personalized, or when a consumer reasonably believes a price is static and the retailer fails to disclose otherwise. Under the unfair-practices theory, the higher price a consumer pays because of undisclosed personalization can itself be a substantial injury that the consumer had no reasonable way to avoid, since a consumer cannot take steps to avoid a price they do not know is personalized.

Critically, the proposal is careful to separate personalized pricing from other, long-accepted forms of price variation. It notes that consumers "obviously do not expect that prices will never vary," pointing to supply-and-demand pricing that affects everyone in a market at once, such as rideshare pricing that moves with local demand, and to prices that necessarily vary by individualized risk, such as insurance premiums or the cost of credit. The proposal is aimed at pricing keyed to a specific consumer's personal data profile in markets where a static price is the norm and the expectation, rather than at dynamic pricing generally. The statement does not carve out discounts tied to a shopper's own history with a retailer; on the contrary, it treats a consumer's belief that a personalized price is "a discount based on their purchase history with that retailer" as one of the mistaken impressions a business may create.

The proposal's suggested fix is disclosure, not prohibition: a business that clearly and conspicuously tells a consumer that a price is personalized, on what basis, and using what type of data is doing what the proposal asks; the Commission says the failure to make those disclosures is what is "likely to constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5." The proposal stops short of a safe harbor: it expressly "declines at this time to take any position on whether some personalized pricing practices are unfair even when fully disclosed to consumers." This federal theory sits alongside, and does not replace, the growing set of state comprehensive privacy laws that already regulate how businesses may collect and use personal data; see our comparison of state comprehensive privacy laws for how those statutes differ from this federal proposal.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The FTC frames this proposal as an extension of a broader pricing-transparency push it has pursued through several other actions it cites as background, including a rule targeting hidden or misleading fees that took effect on May 12, 2025. Read against that pattern, the personalized pricing proposal signals that the Commission's concern is nondisclosure and misrepresentation, not personalization as a business practice in itself.

The proposal also draws a genuinely narrow line. Its own illustrative examples, such as a food delivery company inferring a consumer is homebound or a retailer detecting a shopper is inside its store, are labeled by the Commission as "non-exhaustive" and offered "for discussion purposes only," not as findings that any specific practice is unlawful. Because the document is a policy statement rather than a rule, any actual enforcement action would still require the Commission to prove a violation of an existing statutory or regulatory requirement, which is a meaningfully different bar than the examples alone might suggest.

How This Affects You

For consumers, nothing changes today. Personalized pricing is not banned, and there is no new disclosure requirement in effect while the comment period runs. Readers who want to limit how much personal data is available for profiling, independent of what the FTC ultimately does with this proposal, can look at how to opt out of data broker sales and at state data broker registration requirements, which already require many brokers to register and disclose their practices. California residents also already have CCPA opt-out rights for the sale or sharing of personal information, a state-level protection that exists regardless of how this federal proposal is ultimately resolved.

What Happens Next

The regulations.gov docket FTC-2026-1057 has been accepting comments since August 19, 2026 and currently displays a September 19, 2026 close date. The FTC's press release frames the formal window as 30 days from Federal Register publication; as of August 22, 2026 the statement had not yet been published in the Federal Register, so that formal clock had not started. After the comment period closes, the Commission may adopt the statement as proposed, revise it based on public input, or decline to adopt it at all. None of those outcomes is predictable from the record available as of August 22, 2026, and this article will be updated if the Commission acts.

Even if the Commission ultimately adopts the statement, it would remain an enforcement policy statement rather than a binding rule. The document says so itself: it "does not confer any rights on any person and does not operate to bind the FTC or the public," and any enforcement action would still have to prove a violation of Section 5 or another law the Commission already enforces. An adopted policy statement states the Commission's enforcement intent under existing law; it does not create new law.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers a proposal from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, applicable nationwide, and reflects sources verified on August 22, 2026. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.

Related articles

• how to opt out of data broker sales
• our comparison of state comprehensive privacy laws
• state data broker registration laws
• California's CCPA opt-out rights for the sale or sharing of personal information

---

Last updated: 2026-08-22. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-08-22.