ARTICLE
7 September 2026

Algorithmic Pricing Under Fire: State Restrictions on Personalized and Surveillance Pricing

GT
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Contributor

Greenberg Traurig, LLP has more than 3,200 lawyers across 51 locations in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia. The firm’s broad geographic and practice range enables the delivery of innovative and strategic legal services across borders and industries. Recognized as a 2025 BTI “Best of the Best Recommended Law Firm” by general counsel for trust and relationship management, Greenberg Traurig is consistently ranked among the top firms on the Am Law Global 100, NLJ 500, and Law360 400. Greenberg Traurig is also known for its philanthropic giving, culture, innovation, and pro bono work. Web: www.gtlaw.com.

State regulation of algorithmic pricing is rapidly evolving, with California, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey enacting new restrictions while New York considers even stricter measures. The key distinction lies in whether pricing algorithms use competitor data to address antitrust concerns or consumer-specific personal data to address fairness and deception issues. With several provisions already in effect and others phasing in through 2027, businesses must navigate varying rules by industry, product t
United States Consumer Protection
Timothy Butler’s articles from Greenberg Traurig, LLP are most popular:
  • within Consumer Protection topic(s)
  • in United States
Greenberg Traurig, LLP are most popular:
  • within Accounting and Audit and Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)

State regulation of algorithmic pricing is accelerating. California, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey have enacted new restrictions, while New York lawmakers have passed a bill that would go further than the state’s existing disclosure regime if it becomes law.

For businesses, the key distinction is the data driving the price. California and Connecticut restrict certain tools that use competitor data to address antitrust concerns, while Connecticut, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey address consumer-specific pricing based on personal data to address unfairness and deception concerns. The rules also vary by industry, product, disclosure duty, exception, remedy, and effective date.

These developments arrive against the backdrop of litigation and enforcement involving algorithmic rent-setting tools and growing scrutiny of personalized pricing.

Several provisions are already in effect; others phase in through 2027. The practical question is no longer simply whether software changes prices, but what data it uses, for which products, in which states, and for whom.

This GT Alert summarizes the state-law developments and highlights practical compliance considerations for businesses that develop, sell, or use algorithmic pricing tools.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More