New York may ban individualized pricing by year end under the One Fair Price Act. Instacart faced backlash for charging some shoppers up to 23% more for identical items. Dozens of bills across over 20 states target algorithmic pricing with varying legal rationales. The FTC has drafted a policy statement on how personalized pricing can be misleading or unfair. Some states already restrict individualized pricing in grocery or retail. Others require disclosure of algorithmic pricing practices. New Jersey allows private rights of action and treble damages for violations. Federal regulators are also examining the practice through consumer-protection and antitrust lenses. Dynamic pricing changes based on inventory or demand but shows the same price to all customers. Surveillance pricing changes based on the customer and poses greater legal risk. Loyalty discounts are lower risk if transparent and criteria-based. Pricing by device or location raises legal flags. Third-party pricing tools may suggest coordination among competitors.

• 23% higher prices for identical items
• Dec. 31 deadline for NY One Fair Price Act
• 20+ states with pending bills