Algorithmic pricing laws at a glance
Algorithmic pricing is the use of software to set or recommend prices. The laws in this area fall into two groups. The first targets personalized pricing, where an algorithm uses data about a particular shopper to set that shopper's price; New York requires disclosure and Maryland, Connecticut and New Jersey restrict it. The second targets shared pricing algorithms in rental housing, where competing landlords take rent recommendations from the same software; those laws come from antitrust rather than consumer protection.
Ordinary dynamic pricing, where everyone sees the same price and it moves with demand or inventory, is outside most of these laws. New York's act, for example, applies to dynamic pricing set by an algorithm that uses personal data, and the Duane Morris summary distinguishes pricing driven by market conditions such as supply, demand or inventory. For how personalized pricing works and who uses it, see our explainer on surveillance pricing.
Which states regulate algorithmic pricing? State law table
The table shows enacted laws and their status as of November 9, 2026. Consumer pricing rows rely on Sidley Austin's October 26, 2026 survey; rent rows on Paul, Weiss and Skadden.
| Law | Jurisdiction | Number | Effective | Who it covers | Core duty | Enforcer | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act | New York | GBL § 349-a | July 8, 2025 (enforced from Nov. 10, 2025) | Sellers using personal data in algorithmic pricing | Disclosure label | Attorney General | In force; upheld, on appeal |
| Protection from Predatory Pricing Act | Maryland | H.B. 895 (2026) | Oct. 1, 2026 | Food retailers, third-party delivery | Ban | Attorney General only | In force |
| Surveillance pricing provisions | Connecticut | Public Act 26-130 | July 1, 2027 | Retail sellers, food delivery; others disclose | Ban plus label | State (see statute) | Enacted |
| Fair Price Protection Act | New Jersey | A. 4085/4523 (2026) | Aug. 1, 2027 | Groceries and other necessities | Ban | State, plus private suits | Enacted |
| Fair Pricing and Transparency Ordinance | Seattle | C.B. 121267 | Sept. 1, 2027 | Covered retailers | Ban | See ordinance | Enacted |
| Rent-setting software law | New York | GBL § 340-b | Enacted Oct. 2025 | Landlords and pricing software vendors | Bars coordination through shared software | Attorney General | Section 3 enjoined Sept. 29, 2026 |
| Common pricing algorithms | California | AB 325 (2025) | Jan. 1, 2026 | Anyone using or distributing a shared pricing algorithm | Bars use in anticompetitive agreements or coercion | Cartwright Act enforcement | In force |
| One Fair Price Act | New York | S. 8623-B | Not enacted | Broad; also data sellers | Ban | Attorney General | Awaiting governor |
Colorado's governor vetoed a proposed surveillance pricing ban on June 2, 2026, and California's AB 2564 on surveillance pricing did not pass the Legislature in 2026 (California Lawyers Association).
What is the New York Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act?
The act, codified at New York General Business Law § 349-a, was passed as Part X of the transportation and economic development bill in the state's fiscal 2026 budget, with an effective date of July 8, 2025 (Clark Hill). It applies to businesses that use personalized algorithmic pricing, defined as dynamic pricing set by an algorithm that uses personal data, and then offer goods or services to a consumer at that price. Personal data means any data that identifies or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a specific consumer or device; location data used by ride-hailing and similar transportation services is excluded (Duane Morris).
Insurers and regulated financial institutions are exempt, as are offers to existing subscribers at a price lower than their subscription contract price. Enforcement belongs to the Attorney General alone. She must first send a cease and desist letter identifying the violation and a cure period, and only then seek an injunction and civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation; the act does not say what counts as a single violation (same source).
What the disclosure must say
The required words are fixed: "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA." The notice must be clear and conspicuous and appear in the same medium as, and at or near, every advertisement, display, offer or announcement of the price, in lettering the average consumer can easily see and understand (Duane Morris). A business cannot paraphrase it or move it to a policy page. The Attorney General issued a consumer alert on November 5, 2025 inviting complaints, and on January 8, 2026 wrote to Instacart asking about reported price variations among its shoppers (same source).
The NRF challenge
The National Retail Federation sued in July 2025, arguing the label compels misleading speech, and the Attorney General held off enforcement while the case was pending. On October 8, 2025, Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York dismissed the suit, holding the disclosure purely factual and uncontroversial and therefore subject to the deferential Zauderer standard for commercial disclosures (Clark Hill). The Attorney General's office announced that the act took effect November 10, 2025 (Skadden). The NRF appealed to the Second Circuit, which heard argument in October 2026 (Bloomberg Government). As of November 9, 2026, we found no reported appellate decision, so the dismissal stands and the act is enforceable.
Which states ban rent pricing algorithms?
Rent algorithm laws grew out of antitrust litigation against RealPage, whose revenue management software recommends rents to landlords. The concern is coordination: competing landlords feeding data into one tool and taking its recommendations can act like a cartel without ever talking to each other.
New York
In October 2025 New York added General Business Law § 340-b to its Donnelly Act. Section 2 bars facilitating agreements among landlords not to compete, including through software that pools pricing, supply or lease data from two or more unaffiliated landlords and recommends rents. Section 3 treated a landlord's use of such software's recommendations as an unlawful agreement in itself. In RealPage, Inc. v. New York, No. 25-cv-09847 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni on September 29, 2026 preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Section 3 on First Amendment grounds, finding it did not distinguish between public and nonpublic data; Section 2 survives (Paul, Weiss). The Attorney General has asked the court to reconsider (MLex).
California and local ordinances
California's AB 325, in force since January 1, 2026, amends the Cartwright Act to prohibit using or distributing a common pricing algorithm as part of an anticompetitive agreement, or coercing someone to adopt a price or term it recommends (Skadden). It is not limited to housing. Skadden also lists Connecticut, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Seattle and Portland among the jurisdictions that have restricted algorithmic pricing in rental housing; the ordinances differ, and each city's text should be checked before relying on it.
The federal RealPage settlement
The Justice Department, which sued RealPage in 2024, filed a proposed final judgment on November 24, 2025. It bars RealPage from using competitors' nonpublic data to set runtime rent recommendations, limits model training to nonpublic data at least 12 months old, and ends market surveys used to gather such data, with no money paid and no admission of wrongdoing (Baker McKenzie; proposed final judgment). The rent algorithm dispute is tracked on our planned RealPage case page.
Federal and FTC activity on algorithmic pricing
No federal statute regulates personalized pricing. The FTC has said Congress has not given it authority to prohibit personalized pricing in all circumstances, but that it will act against deceptive or unfair practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act. On August 19, 2026, it proposed an enforcement policy statement focused on failure to disclose how personal data is used to set prices; comments closed September 25, 2026, and no final statement had issued as of Sidley's October 26 survey (Sidley).
On October 28, 2026, the FTC issued Section 6(b) orders to nine airline, ride-sharing, delivery and retail companies asking how personal data shapes the prices they charge and, for platforms, the pay they offer workers (Hunton). A 6(b) order is a study demand, not an accusation. In Congress, Senator Amy Klobuchar's Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act would presume an agreement under antitrust law when competitors share sensitive information through a pricing algorithm; it was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee (Skadden).
Surveillance pricing laws: Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey
Surveillance pricing is the term the newer statutes use for setting a customized price for a consumer or group based on their personal data. Maryland's Protection from Predatory Pricing Act, signed April 28, 2026 and in force since October 1, 2026, bars food retailers and third-party delivery providers from using personal data to set prices. It allows a price where the consumer agrees to share data in exchange for it, exempts some loyalty programs, and is enforced only by the Attorney General after notice and a 45-day cure period (Sidley).
Connecticut's Public Act 26-130 bans surveillance pricing by retail sellers and food delivery services from July 1, 2027 and lets other businesses use it only with the label "THIS PRICE WAS INCREASED USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA" or similar. New Jersey's Fair Price Protection Act, signed July 23, 2026, bans personalized prices for groceries and other necessities from August 1, 2027 and is the first such law with a private right of action, through the state Consumer Fraud Act. Seattle's ordinance takes effect September 1, 2027. New York's One Fair Price Act, passed in June 2026, would ban the practice broadly and reach data sellers too, if the governor signs it (same source).
What it means for shoppers and businesses
For shoppers in New York, the label is the signal: a price set by an algorithm using your personal data must carry the statutory sentence next to it. Complaints go to the Attorney General. In Maryland, a food retailer or delivery app that charges you more because of your data is breaking the law today; Connecticut and New Jersey shoppers get similar protection in 2027. Elsewhere, undisclosed personalized pricing can still be challenged as deceptive, but no statute bans it.
For businesses, the first task is classification. A pricing system that responds only to demand, inventory or time is in a different legal position from one that uses customer accounts, location or browsing history. Businesses selling into New York need the fixed disclosure on every covered price display; those in food and grocery in Maryland, Connecticut and New Jersey need to stop or restructure personalized pricing by each state's date. Landlords and software vendors should treat shared rent recommendations built on competitors' nonpublic data as high risk under the DOJ settlement terms, California's AB 325 and New York's surviving Section 2. Related rules on AI in pay and hiring are on our AI at work and money hub, and California's other AI statutes are on our California AI laws page.
As of November 9, 2026, personalized algorithmic pricing is legal in most states but regulated in four: New York requires a fixed disclosure, enforced since November 10, 2025, and Maryland, Connecticut and New Jersey ban it in food and grocery sales, with the last two starting in 2027. Rent-setting software faces separate antitrust limits in New York and California, and the FTC is studying the practice.
What changed
- 2026-11-13: Page published, with each law's status verified as of November 9, 2026.
- 2026-10-28: FTC issued 6(b) orders on personalized pricing and pay to nine companies.
- 2026-10-01: Maryland's Protection from Predatory Pricing Act took effect.
- 2026-09-29: Federal court preliminarily enjoined Section 3 of New York's rent-setting software law in RealPage v. New York.
- 2026-08-19: FTC proposed an enforcement policy statement on personalized pricing.
- 2026-07-23: New Jersey Fair Price Protection Act signed.
- 2026-01-01: California AB 325 on common pricing algorithms took effect.
- 2025-11-10: New York Attorney General announced the Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act in effect.
- 2025-10-08: Judge Rakoff dismissed the National Retail Federation's First Amendment challenge to the New York act.
Frequently asked questions
What is the New York Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act?
It is New York General Business Law § 349-a. Businesses that set a price with an algorithm using a consumer's personal data must show the statement THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA next to that price. The Attorney General enforces it, with penalties of up to $1,000 per violation after a cure period.
Is algorithmic pricing legal?
Yes in most of the US, as long as it is not deceptive, discriminatory or collusive. New York requires disclosure when personal data is used, Maryland bans it for food sellers and delivery apps, and Connecticut and New Jersey bans start in 2027. Using shared software to coordinate prices among competitors can violate antitrust law.
Which states ban rent pricing algorithms?
New York's 2025 law bars landlords from coordinating through shared rent-setting software, though a court blocked one section in September 2026. California's AB 325 bars common pricing algorithms in anticompetitive agreements. Connecticut and cities including San Francisco, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Seattle and Portland have restricted rent algorithms.
What must a price disclosure say in New York?
The exact words THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA, shown clearly and conspicuously in the same medium as the price and at or near every ad, display or offer of that price, in lettering the average consumer can easily see and understand.
Sources
- Sidley Austin: From disclosures to prohibitions, state personalized pricing laws (Oct. 26, 2026)
- Duane Morris: New York's Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act is in effect (Mar. 12, 2026)
- Clark Hill: New York enacts algorithmic pricing disclosure requirements (June 11, 2025)
- Clark Hill: NY Algorithmic Pricing Act withstands First Amendment challenge
- Skadden: New York algorithmic pricing law enacted (Jan. 2026)
- Bloomberg Government: NY algorithmic pricing law case draws Second Circuit scrutiny
- Paul, Weiss: Federal court partially blocks New York's algorithmic rent-setting ban (Oct. 1, 2026)
- MLex: New York AG asks judge to reconsider rent-setting injunction
- U.S. Department of Justice: Proposed final judgment, United States v. RealPage
- Baker McKenzie: DOJ settles RealPage case
- Hunton: FTC launches personalized pricing and compensation 6(b) study
- California Lawyers Association: 2026 status of California AI and privacy bills
This page is journalism and commentary, not legal advice. AI law changes quickly; check the primary sources above and consult qualified counsel for your situation.