Estimated reading time: 9 minutes.
Key facts
- What happened: On October 28, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ordered nine companies to hand over information about whether they use personal data to set different prices for different shoppers, or different pay for different gig workers.
- The companies: Delta, United, JetBlue, Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, Instacart, Target and Walmart.
- What kind of action this is: A study under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act. It is not a lawsuit and does not accuse any company of breaking the law.
- Deadline: Each company has 45 days from receiving its order to respond. The FTC can go to federal court to force compliance.
- Related policy: In August 2026, the FTC proposed a policy statement saying undisclosed use of personal data to set a price unique to a consumer could violate federal law. That statement has not been finalized.
- For consumers: There is no claim, refund or form. The study could shape future rules and enforcement.
In this article
- What happened
- What personalized pricing means
- Who received orders
- How a 6b study works
- What the FTC wants to learn
- The proposed policy statement
- What companies have said
- State laws on algorithmic pricing
- Timeline
- What remains uncertain
- Frequently asked questions
What happened
The FTC announced on October 28 that it had issued special orders to nine major airlines, ride-sharing companies, food delivery services and retailers. The orders require each company to provide detailed information so the agency can study how personal data is used to set prices and worker pay.
"We intend to scrutinize the opaque methodology that some companies in these industries may be using to determine how much consumers pay or how much gig workers are paid for the same product or service," FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said in the agency's announcement. "Consumers deserve to know whether companies use their web surfing habits or other personal data to estimate the highest price they can charge each consumer. Workers also deserve to know if their compensation is affected by how companies use their personal data."
The Commission voted 2-0 to issue the orders.
This is a study, not an accusation The FTC's orders ask questions. They do not say any of the nine companies charges personalized prices or broke the law, and they do not create any right to a refund.
What personalized pricing means
Personalized pricing, sometimes called surveillance pricing, is the practice of charging different people different prices for the same product at the same time based on information about them. That information could include location, browsing history, purchase history, device type or membership in a loyalty program.
It is different from dynamic pricing, where prices change for everyone based on demand, such as higher fares during holidays or surge pricing at rush hour. With personalized pricing, two people looking at the same item at the same moment could see different prices because of who they are.
The FTC is also looking at the worker side. Its announcement says ride-sharing and delivery companies "may pay their workers shifting compensation offers based on opaque formulas," which could draw on drivers' personal data such as phone usage or their history of accepting past offers. This is sometimes called personalized compensation or algorithmic wage setting.
Who received orders
The orders went to:
- Airlines: Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and JetBlue.
- Ride-sharing: Lyft and Uber.
- Food delivery: DoorDash and Instacart.
- Retailers: Target and Walmart.
The FTC said each company must turn over information that will let the agency assess whether the price of a ticket, ride, food delivery or other product "varies from one person to the next based on factors such as participation in loyalty programs or analysis of personal data by superintelligence algorithms." The orders also ask the companies to document the inputs, tools and procedures used to set or adjust prices and compensation.
How a 6b study works
Section 6(b) of the FTC Act lets the Commission require companies to file reports and answer specific questions about their business practices. The FTC says this authority allows "wide-ranging studies that do not have a specific law enforcement purpose." In other words, the agency can gather information to understand an industry without first suspecting a particular violation.
Companies that receive a 6(b) order must respond, and the FTC says it can ask a federal court to compel compliance if a company does not. According to Reuters and CNBC, the agency plans to publish the results of the study. Information gathered this way can inform reports to Congress, policy statements, rulemaking and, in some cases, later enforcement.
Why the timing matters The orders arrive while the FTC is still reviewing comments on its proposed personalized pricing policy statement. What the agency learns from these nine companies could influence how it writes the final version.
What the FTC wants to learn
The orders focus on actual pricing decisions. The FTC's announcement contrasts this study with one the agency began in 2024. That earlier study sent orders in July 2024 to eight consulting and technology firms that help businesses set prices, and FTC staff released preliminary findings on January 17, 2025, days before the change in administration. According to an American Bar Association summary, those findings described intermediaries using data such as location, browsing history and even mouse movements on a web page.
The current FTC says the 2024 study "examined only middlemen consultancies rather than the businesses that actually set prices" and that "the agency learned nothing about actual pricing decisions" from it. The agency calls the new study a correction of "the Commission's mistaken 2024 approach." The ABA summary notes that the request for public comment tied to the earlier study was withdrawn on January 22, 2025.
The proposed policy statement
In August 2026, the FTC invited public comment on a proposed enforcement policy statement about personalized pricing. A policy statement explains how an agency intends to apply existing law. It is not a new regulation, but it signals what conduct the agency may challenge.
The FTC describes the proposal as explaining "how the undisclosed use of personal information to set a price unique to a consumer could violate the FTC Act." According to a Holland & Knight review, it says businesses that personalize prices should clearly disclose that the price is personalized, the basis for it and the types of data used, and that failing to disclose may be an unfair or deceptive practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act, the federal law against unfair or deceptive practices in commerce. Reuters reports Chairman Ferguson has said personalized pricing could violate consumer protection laws where consumers do not expect it.
Reuters and CNBC report that hundreds of public commenters urged the FTC to ban personalized pricing outright, and that the agency has said it lacks the authority to impose a blanket ban. The final policy statement has not been released.
What companies have said
Reuters reported that spokespeople for Delta, JetBlue and Instacart said their companies do not engage in personalized pricing, and that representatives for the other companies did not immediately respond.
- Delta said in an emailed statement to PYMNTS: "There is no fare product Delta has ever used, is testing or plans to use that targets customers with individualized offers based on personal data."
- Target pointed PYMNTS to an October 15, 2026 fact sheet stating: "Target does not use your personal information to raise an item's price."
The FTC's announcement does not say any company has engaged in personalized pricing.
State laws on algorithmic pricing
Several states have moved ahead of federal regulators. These summaries draw on state statutes and legislature records, the American Bar Association and law firm reviews; check current state sources for details.
- New York's General Business Law section 349-a requires businesses that set a price using an algorithm and a consumer's personal data to display "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA." The attorney general first sends a cease-and-desist letter and can then seek an injunction and civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. A federal judge dismissed a National Retail Federation challenge in October 2025, according to the ABA.
- Maryland's Protection From Predatory Pricing Act, which bars food retailers and third-party delivery services from using consumer personal data to set prices, took effect October 1, 2026, according to the Maryland General Assembly.
- Connecticut enacted HB 5563, signed June 4, 2026, which broadly bars retailers and delivery services from surveillance pricing. Published summaries differ on its effective date.
- New Jersey's Fair Price Protection Act, covering grocery prices, was signed July 23, 2026, with most provisions taking effect August 1, 2027, according to a law firm review.
- New York lawmakers also passed a One Fair Price Act in June 2026 that would ban surveillance pricing outright. It was awaiting the governor's signature as of an October 10, 2026 review.
What shoppers can do now There is nothing to file. If you think you were charged more than others for the same item, screenshots showing the price, date, time, device and account status can help if you later file a complaint with the FTC or your state attorney general.
For cases where consumers can take action now, see our list of class action cases you can join.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 2024 | FTC sends 6(b) orders to eight pricing intermediaries |
| January 17, 2025 | FTC staff release preliminary findings from the 2024 study |
| January 22, 2025 | Request for public comment on that study is withdrawn, according to the ABA |
| October 2025 | Court dismisses National Retail Federation challenge to New York's disclosure law, according to the ABA |
| August 2026 | FTC proposes a personalized pricing enforcement policy statement |
| October 1, 2026 | Maryland's Protection from Predatory Pricing Act takes effect |
| October 28, 2026 | FTC issues 6(b) orders to nine companies |
| About mid-December 2026 | Responses due, 45 days after each company receives its order |
What remains uncertain
- Whether any of the nine companies uses personalized pricing. The FTC has not said so. Delta, JetBlue, Instacart and Target have publicly said they do not use personal data this way.
- What the FTC will publish. Reporters say the agency plans to release findings, but no date has been set.
- The final policy statement. The August proposal could change before it is finalized, and policy statements do not themselves create new legal obligations.
- Effect on private lawsuits. A 6(b) study does not create a private right to sue. Any consumer claims would depend on state or federal laws that allow private actions and on evidence of a specific practice.
This article is for information only and is not legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
What is the FTC personalized pricing inquiry?
It is a study under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act. On October 28, 2026, the FTC ordered nine companies to explain whether and how they use personal data to set prices and gig worker pay.
Which companies received FTC orders?
Delta, United, JetBlue, Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, Instacart, Target and Walmart.
Is the FTC suing Walmart, Uber or the airlines?
No. A 6(b) order is a request for information for a study. It does not accuse any company of wrongdoing.
Can I get a refund because of the FTC inquiry?
No. The study does not provide refunds or a claim process. Any future enforcement action or lawsuit would be separate.
What is the difference between personalized and dynamic pricing?
Dynamic pricing changes prices for everyone based on demand or timing. Personalized pricing sets different prices for different people at the same time based on data about each person.
When will the FTC release its findings?
The companies have 45 days to respond. The FTC has said it plans to publish the study but has not announced a release date.
