The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a draft enforcement policy statement on personalized pricing that requires companies to disclose when a price is personalized, the basis for the price, and the data used. The docket closed on Sept. 25 after receiving almost 3,700 public comments.
Industry concerns
Major retail and technology groups, including the National Retail Federation (NRF), the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the Food Industry Association (FMI), NetChoice, and the Software & Information Industry Association, submitted comments warning that the proposed disclosure rules could unintentionally sweep in ordinary loyalty and promotional pricing.
NRF did not provide a spokesperson but cited its own research suggesting that state personalized‑pricing laws could restrict loyalty programs, customer‑rewards initiatives, and other competitive tools retailers use.
FMI argued that targeted promotions help retailers compete for budget‑conscious shoppers and reduce food waste by directing time‑sensitive discounts to customers most likely to purchase perishable items. “These promotions are a vital tool for both consumers and retailers,” said Stephanie Harris, FMI’s chief public policy officer and general counsel.
NetChoice went further, questioning the FTC’s authority to impose broad disclosure requirements without new legislation. “The FTC should withdraw the statement, finish its ongoing 6(b) study, and ensure any future policy is grounded in solid evidence,” said Patrick Hedger, NetChoice’s director of policy. He referenced the Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision, which limited agencies’ reliance on Chevron deference.
Consumer advocates’ response
Consumer groups, including the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, and Oregon Consumer Justice, argued that disclosure alone will not curb the practice of personalized pricing. Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project, said the FTC is “squandering its authority to stop this practice and instead places the burden on consumers to protect themselves.”
Legislative activity
Sen. Josh Hawley (R‑Mo.) raised concerns about personalized pricing during an Aug. 5 Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on AI‑driven pricing. Senators Jeff Merkley (D‑Ore.) and Ben Ray Luján (D‑N.M.) introduced the Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores Act, which would prohibit surveillance‑based pricing in grocery stores and third‑party delivery platforms.
At the state level, Maryland became the first state to ban certain personalized‑pricing practices with its Protection From Predatory Pricing Act, effective Oct. 1. New Jersey followed with the Fair Price Protection Act in July, and Connecticut passed a ban set to take effect July 1, 2027. New York, which already requires algorithmic price disclosures, passed the broader One Fair Price Act, awaiting Governor Kathy Hochul’s signature. Colorado’s version passed the legislature but was vetoed by Gov. Jared Polis, who called it overly broad.
What’s next?
The FTC has indicated it will consider the public comments before finalizing the policy. Industry groups hope the agency will clarify that loyalty‑program discounts are exempt, while consumer advocates will continue to push for stronger prohibitions on price discrimination based on personal data.
Stakeholders across the country will be watching how the FTC balances transparency with the need to preserve legitimate promotional tools that benefit both shoppers and businesses.
Original reporting: KTBS 3 (Shreveport) — read the source article.
