The FTC on Sept. 3 extended the comment window on Docket FTC-2026-1057, its proposed enforcement policy statement on personalized pricing, by seven days, pushing the deadline from Sept. 18 to Sept. 25 and stretching the total comment period to 37 days.

The extension is small. The rule it protects isn’t. Since the 2-0 vote to publish on Aug. 19, the draft has quietly reset how any small business using AI to set prices for individual customers can operate without inviting Section 5 scrutiny, as we reported in August.

The core of the policy is a three-part disclosure standard: businesses “should clearly and conspicuously disclose” that the price is personalized, the basis for personalization, and the data types used. Vague “specially selected” labels won’t suffice. Chairman Andrew Ferguson framed the theory bluntly, warning that firms that “fail to tell consumers how their personal data is being used to set a price may be in violation of the FTC Act.”

Sidley notes the rule targets personalized pricing (price set to a specific consumer using personal data), not dynamic supply-and-demand pricing; insurance and credit remain long-established exceptions. The scaffolding behind it isn’t new either. The FTC’s July 2024 surveillance pricing orders to eight companies, and January 2025 staff findings that vendors served at least 250 clients, established that the ingestion of location, browsing patterns, mouse movements, and cart-abandonment signals was already industry practice.

Nixon Peabody advises inventorying every online and in-store point where prices vary by user, device, or segment, and separating individual-level inputs from aggregate ones. Blaming the vendor is unlikely to hold; review data rights, audit rights, and indemnification now. Nixon Peabody adds that using data collected for a different purpose to set personalized prices without disclosure or consent creates independent Section 5 risk.

State law is converging on the same theory. Maryland’s HB 895 takes effect Oct. 1, 2026; Connecticut’s HB 5563 in July 2027; New Jersey’s A4523 in August 2027; New York’s Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act and New Jersey’s Fair Price Protection Act sit alongside them. A finalized federal statement will guide state AGs and private plaintiffs working the mirror statutes. The seven-day extension buys time to comment. It doesn’t buy time to comply.

Sources

Sources