The Federal Trade Commission opened a public comment period on a proposed enforcement policy targeting “personalized pricing” — the practice of using consumers’ personal data to charge them individually tailored prices for the same goods and services — on Aug. 19.
The policy statement would put companies on notice that using data profiles to set prices could violate federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the FTC said. The enforcement approach could affect e-commerce platforms, insurance companies, financial services firms, and any business using algorithmic pricing.
Personalized pricing has been documented across multiple industries including airline ticketing, online retail, and insurance premium setting. Researchers have shown that companies can use browsing history, location data, purchase records, and demographic information to charge different consumers different prices for identical products.
For American consumers, the practice means two shoppers visiting the same website at the same time may see different prices based on what the company’s algorithms determine they are willing to pay. The FTC said such practices may cause consumer harm by undermining fair marketplace competition.
The public comment period invites input from industry groups, consumer advocates, privacy researchers, and the general public before the policy is finalized. Comments will be accepted through the Federal Register process.
If finalized, the enforcement policy could fundamentally reshape how companies use data to set prices across the digital economy. Technology industry groups have argued that dynamic pricing benefits consumers by enabling discounts and competitive offers.
Consumer advocacy organizations have pushed for FTC action on personalized pricing for years, describing it as a hidden tax on consumers who lack bargaining power in algorithmic marketplaces.
The policy statement builds on the FTC’s existing authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act and does not require new legislation. The commission framed the action as an interpretation and enforcement priority within its current statutory mandate.