On 28 October 2026, the US Federal Trade Commission issued special orders to nine companies — Delta, United, JetBlue, Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, Instacart, Target and Walmart — requiring them to hand over information about whether personal data is used to set prices for individual customers and compensation for individual workers. The vote to approve the orders was 2-0, and each recipient has 45 days from the date it was served to respond. Nothing in the announcement is an accusation: the Commission has alleged no violation against any of the nine, and it describes the exercise as a study rather than an enforcement action.
What the orders actually require
The orders were issued under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, which the Commission’s announcement says grants it "authority to conduct wide-ranging studies that do not have a specific law enforcement purpose."
The order itself is titled an "Order to File a Special Report." Each company must file a report "no later than 45 days after the date of service," and it "must be subscribed and sworn to by an official of the Company who has prepared or supervised the preparation of the report."
The scope covers both sides of the marketplace. On the customer side, the Commission wants information that "will allow the agency to assess whether the pricing for a ticket, ride share, food delivery or other product or service varies from one person to the next based on factors such as participation in loyalty programs or analysis of personal data by superintelligence algorithms." On the worker side, the orders ask companies "to document the inputs, tools and procedures used to adjust or set compensation and pricing," because ride-sharing and food-delivery firms "may pay their workers shifting compensation offers based on opaque formulas" and may base those offers on "their drivers’ personal data, such as their phone usage or acceptance history for past offers."
"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," said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. "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."
Where the inquiry stops short of enforcement
If a recipient does not respond, "the Commission has the power to compel compliance in federal court," the release states. The object of that compulsion is the information itself, not the pricing practice: nothing in the announcement threatens a company for charging two people different prices.
That distinction matters, because the Commission said in August that it "does not have the legal authority to ban personalized pricing in all circumstances." What it can do is target deception — representations that a price is fixed when it is not, or that a discount rests on one factor when the underlying price was raised on another.
The Commission admitted its last study was misdirected
The most unusual passage in the announcement is the Commission’s own correction. "The Commission issued a study on personalized pricing in mid-2024 and released staff findings days before President Donald J. Trump took office," it says. "But that study examined only middlemen consultancies rather than the businesses that actually set prices for services and products offered to consumers. The agency learned nothing about actual pricing decisions from the 2024 study. This study corrects the Commission’s mistaken 2024 approach and demands information directly from companies who may be engaging in personalized pricing, rather than middlemen."
The Associated Press reported that a preliminary report filed in January 2025 "found that grocers, clothing companies and others were using third-party companies to help them individualize online prices based on shoppers’ locations, browsing histories and other factors." Ferguson, AP added, "has said that report was rushed and should have asked the companies directly for data instead of focusing on third-party intermediaries."
The 2025 report described the behaviour of pricing consultancies and their clients; it was not an adjudication of wrongdoing by any named retailer. And the current inquiry does not extend that report’s conclusions.
The rules are still being written
In August the Commission put out for comment a proposed enforcement policy statement defining personalized pricing as "the use of personal data to set prices according to the amount that a company believes an individual consumer is willing to spend." The proposed statement says that where consumers reasonably expect prices not to vary by personal data, businesses should "clearly and conspicuously disclose not just that the price is personalized, but also the basis for that personalization and the types of data on which the personalization is based," and that the failure to do so "is likely to constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5."
It also says what it will not do. "The Commission declines at this time to take any position on whether some personalized pricing practices are unfair even when fully disclosed to consumers." The proposal targets silence and misrepresentation rather than the underlying practice.
What the companies have said
On the day of the orders, several firms set out their own positions, as AP reported. Delta said it has "zero tolerance for discriminatory or predatory pricing" and that "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." JetBlue said it does not use personal information or web-browsing history to set individual prices, because "fares are determined by demand and seat availability, and all customers have access to the same fares." Instacart said shopper compensation is based "solely on job-related criteria, including distance traveled, number of items and expected shopping time."
These are the companies’ own characterisations, not findings, and the sworn reports requested by the orders have not been filed. AP also reported that Walmart’s chief executive said in September that the retailer does not use income, shopping history or willingness to pay to set prices. AP separately noted that "legislators in at least 30 states have considered pricing-related bills this year, including measures addressing algorithmic and personalized pricing."
What is not established
No finding has been made that any of the nine companies charges one customer more than another. No finding has been made that any worker’s compensation is set using personal data. No measurement of a price gap has been published — the October announcement contains no percentage and no dollar figure — and none should be inferred from the fact that the inquiry exists. Nor is there a schedule for conclusions; the only fixed date in the documents is the 45-day response window.
What the inquiry will produce, if it proceeds, is a record: sworn descriptions of how nine companies decide what to charge and what to pay. Whether that record leads to enforcement, to guidance, or to nothing at all is not yet established.