The FTC Ramps Up Its Pricing-Related Inquiries

In the last weeks of October, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took two actions that made clear it is ramping up its inquiries into consumer-facing pricing conduct that the agency perceives as unfair or deceptive.

On October 28, 2026, the FTC ordered nine major airlines, ride-sharing companies, and food delivery firms to turn over information that would allow the agency to assess whether the pricing for a ticket, ride share, food delivery, or other product 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.

In a statement, FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said that the FTC plans 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. “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.”

The orders ask for the companies to document the inputs, tools, and procedures used to adjust or set comparison and pricing. In August 2026, the FTC forewarned retailers and other companies that it would be scrutinizing their personalized pricing practices by issuing a Proposed Policy Statement on the issue (see also, our prior advisory). In that Proposed Policy Statement, the FTC made clear that although Congress did not give the agency the authority to prohibit the practices entirely, it maintained the authority to enforce existing law “aggressively” against any deceptive or unfair personalized pricing practices that violate Section 5 of the FTC Act. The recent orders were issued under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, which gives the Commission the power to compel compliance in federal court if the recipients fail to respond within 45 days from the date they received the order.

Just two days earlier, on October 26, 2026, the FTC, accompanied by 20 states¹, also announced that it initiated a lawsuit against Dollar General, for allegedly engaging in “long-running deceptive pricing practices” by routinely charging customers more at the register than the prices displayed on the shelves, price tags, and in advertisements.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, alleges that from at least January 1, 2019 through March 31, 2026, Dollar General has repeatedly mislabeled prices, overcharged consumers, and failed to correct the inaccuracies, despite extensive corporate knowledge of the problem. This, the FTC and states argue, demonstrates pervasive and systemic pricing inaccuracies, rather than isolated or accidental errors. 

The complaint further alleges that from January 1, 2023 through March 31, 2026, Dollar General received at least 29,265 complaints categorized as “Did Not Honor Marked Price,” with complaints submitted in all 48 states in which it operates. The FTC and states further allege that, despite the complaints and purported confirmation through internal audits, Dollar General’s own data, and settlements with six state attorneys general. 

Dollar General failed to implement adequate safeguards to prevent continued overcharging.

The complaint brings 29 causes of action, including counts that allege violations of the FTC Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and various state consumer protection laws.

In response to the lawsuit, Dollar General issued a statement denying the FTC’s allegations that it “abandoned its mission” to improve the lives of millions of Americans by helping them save time and money on everyday essentials. In the statement, Dollar General explained that it was made aware of the FTC’s investigation in early February 2026 through the receipt of a civil investigative demand, which it said it engaged with cooperatively. However, negotiations with the FTC and states apparently broke down in late September 2026 after the FTC demanded “a monetary amount that was untethered to — and orders of magnitude larger than — any realistic assessment of amounts attributable to pricing discrepancies.” According to the company, Dollar General issued a counteroffer; however, in lieu of a response, the FTC and states filed this lawsuit. Dollar General says that it will defend this litigation vigorously. The case will proceed before District Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

These are just two representative actions taken recently by the FTC that signal the agency’s  focus on pricing transparency and affordability. Companies that use personalized algorithm-driven pricing, or that manage large-scale price displays across many stores, should expect intensifying scrutiny from the FTC and state attorneys general. Given this heightened enforcement focus, consumer products and retail companies may want to keep the following in mind:

• Consider auditing price accuracy. To help mitigate the risk of FTC or state inquiries, companies should consider periodically checking that shelf, advertised, and register prices match, and document the results.
• Implement a documented process to track pricing complaints and audit findings. Promptly investigating and implementing corrective action plans for perceived systemic pricing inaccuracies revealed through investigations and audits can help mitigate enforcement risk and demonstrate a commitment to pricing accuracy.
• Inventory the data and tools used to set prices. Identify whether any pricing model, including vendor-supplied tools, uses individual-level data such as purchase history, location, perceived socioeconomic status, or evidence of vulnerability to assess those practices, and any related consumer disclosures, against the FTC’s stated concerns in its Proposed Policy Statement and applicable state disclosure requirements.

We will continue to monitor developments regarding FTC and state activity in this area. Please contact any of the authors or your Arnold & Porter contact with questions about how such developments may affect your pricing, data, or disclosure practices.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.