U.S. state lawmakers have introduced more than 40 bills across at least 24 states to regulate personalized algorithmic pricing in 2026 thus far, already outpacing the number of personalized algorithmic pricing bills introduced in all of 2025. While their definitions and scope vary, the 2026 bills broadly refer to “personalized algorithmic” or “dynamic” pricing as the practice of setting or adjusting prices by analyzing consumer data through AI or other automated tools, which may result in different prices being offered to different consumers for the same good or service.
If enacted, these bills could impose a broad range of restrictions on such pricing, including disclosure requirements, general prohibitions, sector-specific restrictions, and restrictions on the use of protected class data in pricing decisions. Although the proposals vary significantly, a few key themes emerge across these bills:
- Disclosure Requirements. Several states have introduced legislation that would require businesses to affirmatively disclose when prices are determined using algorithmic methods, similar to New York’s 2025 Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act. For example, Connecticut SB 4, Maryland HB 1475, and several other state bills would require any person that establishes a price using “personalized algorithmic pricing” to include a disclosure stating that “THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.”
By contrast, Illinois’s Algorithmic Pricing Transparency Act (HB 4248) would take a more granular transparency approach, requiring entities that sell goods or services through online platforms to, among other obligations, provide disclosures of the “categories of personal data used to generate the price” and a linked explanation of the entity’s algorithmic pricing practices. HB 4248 also would establish a consumer right to opt out of “surveillance pricing” and require entities to provide a “non-personalized baseline price” upon request.
- General Prohibitions. Other proposals would categorically restrict or ban personalized algorithmic pricing practices to set or adjust consumer prices. Note that these bills generally would not treat non-discriminatory discounts, coupons, or loyalty programs as covered pricing activity. Vermont S.207 and California AB 2564, for example, would prohibit the use of “surveillance pricing”—defined as setting a customized price using personally identifiable information gathered through “electronic surveillance technology”—unless the price difference is based solely on cost differences or reflects a discount offered to all consumers on equal terms.
Other bills, such as Washington’s Fair Pricing and Transparency Act (HB 2481 / SB 6312), would also prohibit pricing based on an “algorithmic determination of willingness to pay,” while bills like Rhode Island H 7849 would prohibit “algorithmic price increases” based on a consumer’s personal data, while exempting “price decreases.”
- Protected Class Data. Many of these bills would impose restrictions on the use of protected class data for personalized algorithmic pricing decisions. New Jersey A4085 / S3612, for example, would prohibit businesses from using “personalized algorithmic pricing, surveillance pricing, or any pricing strategy” based on “protected class data,” while Nebraska’s Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Predatory Pricing Act (LB 1006) and other state bills would generally prohibit any use of “protected class data” to set prices that results in discriminatory pricing outcomes, including the withholding or denial of accommodations or a price that differs from prices offered to other individuals or groups.
- Minor Data Limitations. Other bills would restrict the use of minors’ data for personalized algorithmic pricing. Iowa SF 2278 and Tennessee HB 2052 / SB 1998, for example, would prohibit the collection or use of “data belonging to minors” under 17 years of age for “personalized algorithmic pricing,” regardless of parental consent.
- Retail and Grocery Restrictions. Several bills would impose sector-specific limits on grocery stores and food retailers. For example, Georgia’s Surveillance Pricing Act (HB 1439) and New Jersey S3732 would prohibit “retail food establishments” or “food retailers” from using “surveillance pricing” to set food or grocery prices. Other bills like Oklahoma HB 3959 and Tennessee HB 2052 / SB 1998 would combine pricing restrictions with technology bans, prohibiting food retail establishments from using electronic shelf labels or digital shelf display technology.
Taken together, these state personalized algorithmic pricing proposals reflect only one dimension of broader state AI legislative activity underway in 2026.