The FTC announced a seven-day extension of the public comment period on its proposed enforcement policy statement regarding personalized pricing, pushing the deadline from Sept. 18, 2026 to Sept. 25, 2026. Personalized pricing refers to using personal data to set prices based on what the company believes an individual consumer is willing to spend. This is a procedural announcement about draft agency guidance, not an enforcement action against any company, and no entity was named, no violation found, and no penalty imposed.
No remedies imposed. This press release merely announces that the public comment period on the FTC's proposed enforcement policy statement regarding personalized pricing was extended by seven days, with a new deadline of Sept. 25, 2026. Comments may be submitted electronically via the regulations.gov docket FTC-2026-1057.
Although no enforcement action was taken, companies should prepare for a future FTC enforcement policy statement on personalized pricing by reviewing vendor and customer agreements for clauses that permit or govern the use of personal data in pricing decisions. In-house teams should examine data processing and data use limitation provisions in contracts with analytics, ad tech, e-commerce platform, and pricing-software vendors to determine whether consumer data (browsing behavior, purchase history, location, demographics) may be used to set individualized prices, and whether such uses require additional disclosure or consent. Privacy policies and customer terms of service should be checked for any commitment that prices are uniform or that data will not be used for differential pricing, and vendor agreements may need added representations, warranties, and audit rights requiring pricing algorithms to comply with emerging FTC guidance on surveillance pricing.
Entity
N/A (no entity named - agency policy announcement)
Industry
Other"FTC Extends Public Comment on Proposed Policy Statement Regarding Personalized Pricing"
"September 3, 2026"
"the proposed [enforcement policy statement regarding personalized pricing](/legal-library/browse/federal-trade-commissions-proposed-enforcement-policy-statement-regarding-personalized-pricing). The new deadline to submit comments is Sept. 25, 2026."
"The Federal Trade Commission extended by seven days the public comment period"
"Personalized pricing refers to the use of personal data to set prices according to the amount that a company believes an individual consumer is willing to spend."
"https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2026-1057"
The FTC referred a complaint against REPS & Company Inc. and company executives, alleging they bypassed ticket-issuer security controls and purchasing limits to acquire millions of tickets for resale. The complaint was filed by the Department of Justice, and the case will be decided by the court; the press release does not report a penalty or other remedy imposed.
The FTC sued Digital Forensics Corporation LLC and affiliated defendants, alleging they misled sextortion victims with promises of investigative and monitoring services that often were not provided, and used fake positive reviews. A federal court granted the FTC’s request to temporarily halt the defendants’ activities; the complaint remains for the court to decide.
The FTC alleged that Greenway Auto Group advertised vehicle prices thousands of dollars below the amounts consumers actually paid and used mailers falsely suggesting recipients had won cash prizes. Greenway agreed to an order requiring transparent pricing and prohibiting deceptive prize mailers and other misrepresentations; the press release does not state a monetary penalty.
The FTC sent warning letters to 24 large healthcare services companies, cautioning that incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely pricing information for scheduled medical care may be unfair or deceptive. The letters urge recipients to review their price-disclosure practices and take corrective action; they announce no fine or formal order.
$1.9M
The FTC alleged that Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC made deceptive and unsubstantiated claims about the Premier Martial Arts franchise opportunity and violated the Franchise Rule. The proposed settlements require the companies to pay a combined $1.85 million to compensate franchisees, prohibit certain misrepresentations, and require Franchise Rule compliance; certain franchisees may also cancel their agreements without penalty.
The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.