About

FTC and Congress intensify surveillance pricing crackdown amid state legislative wave

Published
Score
14

Why it matters

Federal regulators and lawmakers are moving aggressively against surveillance pricing—the practice of using consumer data to set individualized prices for identical products or services. In April 2026, FTC leadership told Congress that staff work on the issue continues, with the agency considering whether new disclosure requirements should apply to highly personalized, data-driven pricing. That same month, the House Oversight Committee launched a formal investigation, sending letters to major travel and platform companies demanding documentation on revenue management algorithms, consumer data practices, and testing protocols.

The FTC initiated a Section 6(b) study in 2024 to examine how companies use consumer data for surveillance pricing and algorithmic decision-making. More than 40 bills across at least 24 states have been introduced in 2026 alone to regulate personalized algorithmic pricing. California's proposed AB 2564 would prohibit the practice outright, with civil penalties reaching $12,500 per violation. Maryland, New York, Tennessee, and Arizona have introduced similar measures. At the federal level, Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Ruben Gallego, and Cory Booker introduced the One Fair Price Act to ban surveillance pricing nationally. The House Oversight Committee has characterized the practice as a "black box" requiring transparency.

Attorneys should monitor this rapidly fragmenting regulatory landscape. The FTC's ongoing investigation, combined with multi-state legislative momentum and federal enforcement expansion into retail, grocery, hotel, and hospitality sectors, creates near-term compliance risk for companies using personalized pricing algorithms. Traditional dynamic pricing based on market conditions remains lawful, but regulators are drawing a sharp distinction between that practice and pricing tied to individual consumer data. Companies operating across multiple states face the prospect of conflicting state requirements and potential federal action simultaneously.

mail Subscribe to Antitrust email updates

Primary sources. No fluff. Straight to your inbox.

Also on LawSnap