OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

FTC Probes Algorithmic Pricing Using Personal Data

5 sources · updated 2026-10-29
Left 40% Center 20% Right 40%
2 left · 1 center · 2 right

What happened

The Federal Trade Commission ordered nine companies—Walmart, Target, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, and JetBlue—to provide information on whether and how they use consumers’ and workers’ personal data, such as location, browsing history, and income, to set individual prices, wages, and job offers. The orders, announced Wednesday, seek details on pricing methodologies including AI use, related research such as A/B tests, and similar technology used to offer workers jobs, covering activity since January 1, 2023; each firm has 45 days to respond or could face legal action to compel compliance. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson said the agency intends to scrutinize “the opaque methodology that some companies in these industries may be using” and that 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,” adding that workers “deserve to know if their compensation is affected by how companies use their personal data.” Delta said it has never used, tested, or planned a fare product that “targets customers with individualized offers based on personal data”; Instacart said it does not use personal information to set prices “and we never will”; JetBlue said it does not use personal information or web browsing history and that fares are set by demand and seat availability with the same fares available to all customers. The FTC said it will use the material to publish a study for regulators and lawmakers and that it does not have authority to issue a blanket prohibition against personalized pricing.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 5 articles

5 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report. Delta spokesperson denied part of it on the record.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 5 of 5
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Andrew N. Ferguson, Andrew Ferguson, Federal Trade Commission and FTC
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 5
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: FTC inquiry/order, official demand, regulatory filing
Credits another outlet 0 of 5
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 1 of 5
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this. Here: e.g. “a senior FTC official”
On-record denial 2
A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Delta spokesperson (Business Insider, Oct 28, 20:19 UTC); Instacart (Business Insider, Oct 28, 20:19 UTC)
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 28, 19:19 UTC by New York Post, naming its source. First document in the first report, from New York Post (official demand).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

The two sides split the facts that define the FTC's demand, so each reader misses key pieces of what was ordered. Left-leaning coverage alone reports that firms must turn over pricing methods from 2023 onward, plus their A/B tests. Right-leaning coverage alone names every target, including Lyft and JetBlue, and Fox Business adds that companies that fail to respond can face legal action. Left-leaning coverage writes as if these companies already personalize prices, while right-leaning coverage treats that as unproven. Business Insider asks "how they personalize the prices you pay." Fox Business describes an inquiry into "whether major US companies charge customers different prices." Has even one of these companies already charged two people different prices for the same thing because of personal data?
Bottom line

Business Insider never names all nine companies the FTC ordered, and Fox Business never mentions that those orders demand pricing tests back to 2023.

The receipts — 3 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • FTC will use the information to publish a study to inform regulators and lawmakers official statementin NY Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • FTC has said it does not have the authority to issue a blanket prohibition against the practice official statementin NY Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Each company has 45 days from receipt of the order to respond numberin Fox Business · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Business Insider framed the inquiry as a transparency fight over whether firms extract “the highest price they can charge each consumer” and whether gig pay is similarly personalized, quoting Ferguson that both consumers and workers “deserve to know.” It tied the orders to the spread of dynamic pricing—from concert tickets to jeans and digital shelf tags—and to Uber presenting drivers with payouts that are not a per-mile or per-minute rate but instead consider factors such as demand. Company denials were recorded as pushback rather than as settling the question, and the piece highlighted that the Commission is also seeking how similar tools are used to offer workers jobs.
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage treated the inquiry as the FTC “flexing its consumer protection powers” ahead of congressional elections, when voters rank the cost of living as the top issue, and foregrounded on-the-record denials that the named firms individually price using personal data. The New York Post noted that personalized pricing is hard to observe from outside, that state lawmakers have moved to ban it and algorithmic wage-setting, and that the National Retail Federation has criticized those laws and defended data-driven discounts as loyalty incentives; it also reported that after a public-comment call, hundreds of commenters urged an outright ban even though the FTC says it cannot impose one. Fox Business stressed Instacart’s statement that it “does not and will not engage in surveillance pricing,” JetBlue’s same-fare claim, and Delta’s “zero tolerance for discriminatory or predatory pricing,” presenting the probe as an examination of whether the practice occurs rather than as established fact.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that AI- and algorithm-driven prices and gig pay are structurally opaque, so shoppers and workers cannot tell if browsing history or other personal data is used to charge each person’s maximum or to vary compensation—backed by Ferguson’s “deserve to know” framing and by orders that specifically seek methodologies, A/B tests, and worker-offer data. The right’s strongest argument is that individual, data-based extraction is unproven at these firms and that much of what looks like “personalized” pricing can be ordinary demand-based fares or loyalty discounts—backed by Delta’s, Instacart’s, and JetBlue’s denials and by the National Retail Federation’s defense of data-driven discounts. The central unresolved tension is whether data-driven price and wage variation is hidden surplus extraction that outsiders cannot detect, or standard dynamic and loyalty pricing that the targeted companies say they do not apply on a personal-data, person-by-person basis—and whether an FTC study can separate those without a ban the agency says it lacks power to issue.

5 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.