The Federal Trade Commission on October 28, 2026, ordered nine major companies to provide detailed information about whether and how they use personal data to set consumer prices and worker compensation. Delta, United, JetBlue, Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, Instacart, Target and Walmart are covered by the inquiry, which reaches across airlines, retail, ride-hailing and delivery.
The companies have 45 days from receipt of the orders to respond. The FTC issued the demands under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, its authority to conduct broad market studies. That makes this a compulsory information-gathering exercise, not a finding that the recipients broke the law. The Commission approved the orders in a 2–0 vote, according to its October 28 announcement.
The consequential change is whose records the agency wants. An earlier FTC study examined pricing intermediaries. This inquiry goes directly to businesses that set the prices consumers encounter and, in some cases, the compensation offers gig workers receive.
Which Companies Must Respond?
The FTC’s recipient list includes nine companies, grouped here by their familiar services. Some operate across more than one category.
| Service category | Companies receiving orders |
|---|---|
| Airlines | Delta, United, JetBlue |
| Ride-hailing and delivery | Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, Instacart |
| Retail | Target, Walmart |
The orders seek documentation of the inputs, tools and procedures used to adjust or set prices and compensation. The agency wants to assess whether different people receive different prices for a ticket, ride, food delivery or other product or service because of factors such as loyalty-program participation or analysis of personal data.
Worker compensation is a separate part of the inquiry. The FTC points to phone usage and past offer-acceptance history as examples of personal information that could influence individualized compensation offers. It contrasts those potentially shifting offers with the transparent salaries or fixed hourly wages typically paid to airline employees.
Those examples describe questions the agency is investigating. They are not confirmed descriptions of any particular recipient’s practices.
What the FTC Means by Personalized Pricing
Personalized pricing concerns the relationship between information about a person and the price offered to that person. The agency’s stated concern is whether businesses use browsing habits or other personal information to estimate the highest price an individual consumer will pay.
That differs from a price changing because the transaction itself has changed. Two airline tickets purchased on different days, for example, are not a clean comparison: the timing and available inventory may differ. Even two apparently identical offers could have different eligibility conditions.
A useful investigation therefore has to connect three things:
- Inputs: What information about a consumer, worker or transaction enters the decision?
- Decision process: What tools and procedures turn those inputs into an offer?
- Outcome: What price or compensation offer results, and how would it change with different inputs?
This is why the request for procedures matters as much as the request for data. A list of information a company holds cannot, by itself, show which information actually affected a price.
The announcement also uses the phrase “superintelligence algorithms.” It identifies no model, architecture or demonstrated capability that would explain that label. I would put more weight on the requested decision records than on the terminology: those records could reveal what information influenced an offer, regardless of whether the underlying software deserves an advanced-AI description. The announcement’s technical detail does not support conclusions about any recipient’s specific AI system.
The 45-Day Clock Starts With Receipt
The response window begins when each company receives its order, not automatically on the October 28 announcement date. Without the individual receipt dates, the release does not establish a single calendar deadline for all nine businesses.
The procedural details are straightforward:
- Response period: 45 days from receipt.
- Legal authority: Section 6(b) of the FTC Act.
- Commission vote: 2–0.
- Compliance mechanism: The FTC can seek a federal court order requiring a response.
Recipients also have procedural rights. The FTC’s overview of its investigative authority, revised in July 2025, explains that a company receiving a Section 6(b) order may petition to limit or quash it.
The important practical distinction is between enforcing the information demand and enforcing laws against an underlying business practice. A court proceeding to obtain required records would concern compliance with the order. It would not, by itself, resolve whether a pricing or compensation system was unlawful.
The 45-day period is therefore a deadline to provide information, not an announced deadline to change prices or worker pay.
A Market Study Is Different From an Enforcement Finding
Section 6(b) allows the FTC to require special reports and written answers about a company’s business, conduct, practices and management. The agency can use that power for wide-ranging studies without a specific law-enforcement purpose, according to its authority overview.
That gives the FTC a way to investigate an opaque market before deciding whether a legal response is warranted. A study can produce information useful to policymakers even if it uncovers no illegal activity.
Andrew Ferguson made that distinction when he was a commissioner supporting the earlier personalized-pricing inquiry. In his July 23, 2024, concurring statement, he wrote:
“These orders are not an enforcement action”
Ferguson also explained that such studies may inform future enforcement but need not do so. His statement discussed their value to Congress and state legislatures considering privacy laws.
For the current recipients, the immediate obligation is disclosure to the agency. The October announcement reports no determination that any named company unlawfully used personal data or that a particular algorithm caused harm. Any later enforcement case would require its own factual and legal basis.
Calling this merely a voluntary survey would understate the FTC’s compulsory powers. Calling it a verdict against nine companies would overstate what the agency has announced.
Why Going Directly to Companies Matters
The earlier inquiry began in July 2024 and focused on intermediaries that supplied pricing and customer-segmentation tools. FTC staff published initial research summaries in January 2025, describing work on the data sources, technical methods and commercial relationships behind personalized pricing.
The October 2026 announcement criticizes that approach. It says the earlier study did not reveal actual pricing decisions and presents the new orders as a correction that seeks information directly from the businesses making those decisions.
That is the current Commission’s assessment of the earlier work. The January 2025 document describes its findings as emerging and non-exhaustive, so it is more precise to distinguish the questions each inquiry can answer than to treat the earlier research as having no informational value.
Frequently Asked Questions
3 questions
1What Is a Section 6(b) Order?
It is a compulsory FTC demand for reports or written answers about business practices. The agency can use it for a market study without bringing an enforcement case.
