FTC Extends Public Comment Period on Proposed Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing
The Federal Trade Commission has extended the public comment period for its proposed policy statement on personalized pricing.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on September 3, 2026, that it is extending the public comment period for its proposed policy statement regarding personalized pricing. The extension was announced in an FTC press release dated September 3, 2026.
The proposed policy statement addresses personalized pricing, a practice where businesses may charge different prices to different consumers based on their personal data. The FTC's action extends the time for public comment on the proposal.
The FTC's press release, titled "FTC Extends Public Comment on Proposed Policy Statement Regarding Personalized Pricing," provides details on the extension. The cause of the extension has not been determined, but the FTC has stated it is extending the comment period.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 13 Sept 2026, 13:51current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.