• The FTC wants information about how companies personalize prices.
• The Commission said that it sent orders to companies from Uber to Walmart.
• The orders ask about web use habits and other personal information.

The Federal Trade Commission is asking companies from food delivery services to airlines about how they use personalized prices.

The Commission said on Wednesday that it sent orders to the companies asking for details about what kind of personal information they use to determine prices. The orders target a wide range of companies, from retailers Walmart and Target to food delivery services Uber and DoorDash to airlines like Delta and United.

"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," said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson.

"Workers also deserve to know if their compensation is affected by how companies use their personal data," Ferguson added.

Several companies pushed back against the FTC's claims.

"There is no fare product Delta has ever used, is testing or plans to use that targets customers with individualized offers based on personal data," a Delta spokesperson said.

"We do not use personal information to set prices, and we never will," Instacart said in a statement.

Walmart and Target previously said they would be transparent about their pricing strategies as more stores start using digital price tags.

A growing number of companies are using dynamic pricing to determine what customers pay for everything from concert tickets to jeans.

Some companies use similar methods to determine how much workers get paid. Uber presents its drivers with potential payouts that aren't based on a per-mile or per-minute rate, for instance, but instead consider factors such as demand.

The FTC's orders ask the companies to submit information about their pricing methodologies, including how they use AI, going back to January 1, 2023. It also asks for research that the companies have done on their pricing strategies, such as A/B tests.

The Commission is also seeking information about how the companies used similar technology to offer workers jobs, according to the orders.

Do you have a story idea about Uber, DoorDash, or Instacart? Contact this reporter at abitter@businessinsider.com or via encrypted messaging app Signal at 808-854-4501. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• The FTC and 20 US states are suing Dollar General over its pricing practices.
• A complaint filed Monday alleges the company repeatedly mislabeled products and overcharged customers.
• Dollar General said it will defend the lawsuit while remaining open to discussing a resolution.

Dollar General is facing fresh federal scrutiny over its pricing practices.

The US Federal Trade Commission said Monday it has filed a lawsuit, along with 20 states, accusing the discount retailer of deceptive pricing on its shelves, price tags, and advertisements.

"Dollar General has, for years, repeatedly mislabeled prices, overcharged consumers and failed to correct the issue despite extensive corporate knowledge of the problem," the FTC said in a statement.

The company operates more than 21,000 US stores and typically serves customers in more rural and low-income areas of the country.

The filings say Dollar General has received tens of thousands of complaints from shoppers who said they did not receive an advertised price and that the company failed to adequately address the problem.

As a result, Dollar General received millions of dollars from overcharging customers, the FTC alleged.

In a statement, Dollar General said it will defend the lawsuit while remaining open to discussing a resolution.

"The lawsuit filed today by the Federal Trade Commission and several States suggests that we have abandoned our mission and willfully disregarded the affordability needs of our customers. Nothing could be further from the truth," the statement said.

Dollar General said its goal is accuracy between shelf and register prices. When discrepancies occur, store teams are expected to make things right for customers.

The company said it cooperated with the investigation since February, producing documents, data, and testimony. The FTC and the company had exchanged potential remedies when the lawsuit was filed, the company said.

The action comes less than two weeks after New York Attorney General Letitia James reached a settlement of nearly $1.9 million in food and personal items as a civil penalty for overcharging shoppers in the state. New York did not join the FTC's complaint.

US consumers have been particularly worried about fairness in retail pricing as more stores introduce digital price tags. Both Walmart and Target have issued public statements promising price transparency and consistency online and at the register. Home Depot recently did the same.

• Home Depot's CIO says digital shelf labels won't mean different prices for different shoppers.
• The retailer sees the tags as a way to show delivery timing and help pick online orders.
• It comes as consumers and lawmakers worry about electronic shelves tying in dynamic pricing.

Buying a screwdriver at Home Depot?

Well, you and your next-door neighbor should be paying the same price for the same product on the same day.

Angie Brown, the home improvement retailer's executive vice president and chief information officer, told Business Insider that it's exploring a larger rollout of its electronic shelf labels, or ESLs — the small digital placards that large retailers have been using to replace paper price tags.

When asked if those wireless-updatable tags could introduce dynamic pricing, Brown responded, "Absolutely not."

Instead, The Home Depot uses those tags to accurately inform customers when their store expects the next delivery of a specific product, Brown said.

"We love being able to show you on the sign, 'You can get this as soon as the next day,'" she said. "And we want that to be right."

Why those little shelf electronic labels have caused so much worry

Several major brands — including Walmart, Kroger, Best Buy, and Whole Foods — have rolled out electronic shelf labels in their stores.

Consumers have scrutinized the rollout amid fears that stores could quickly raise prices during busy shopping periods or use customer data to show different prices to separate shoppers.

Some state lawmakers have responded to that anxiety, too. New Jersey passed a yearlong moratorium on new implementation of the tech. Maryland passed legislation requiring grocery stores to keep electronically displayed prices unchanged for a full business day.

Concerns have prompted retailers to get ahead of dynamic pricing concerns: Walmart's CEO, John Furner, for example, wrote a memo in September to customers and employees, explicitly stating that the technology wouldn't be used to adjust prices.

"We don't set different prices based on who you are or the time of day, and we won't," he wrote. "We price the product, not the person."

Target also shared a similar statement this month, saying that the company "does not use personal information to raise prices."

Electronic signs in Home Depot

Home Depot has been testing the technology for years. In its 2020 annual report, the retailer said it had initially used electronic shelf-label capabilities in the appliances section before trying them in additional merchandising departments.

Brown said Home Depot sees the labels as a tool for store operations, not a new pricing strategy.

As stores increasingly double as fulfillment hubs for delivery workers and pickup orders, she said, ESLs can light up to help gig workers and employees quickly locate a product — an update that Walmart rolled out in its stores earlier this month.

She also said the company is not using the technology in its garden department.

There are two important caveats.

First, Home Depot sells several commodities, such as building materials and garden goods. Brown said the ESLs will reflect the individual commodity markets.

Second, Home Depot's Pro customers can receive bulk discounts when they cross purchasing thresholds. Brown said those prices are set by transparent rules, not by a shopper's personal data.

Still, for everyone else walking through a Home Depot aisle, she said, the promise is simpler: The price one customer sees should be the same price another customer sees.

"Those are the use cases we're interested in, not in changing price more often because we have electronic shelf labels," she said. "We've never talked about changing our pricing strategy if we were to roll out ESLs."

European Union negotiators have reached a provisional agreement to revise the rules governing the bloc’s carbon market, increasing the number of emissions allowances that can remain in reserve before being permanently cancelled.

The agreement, reached by the Council and European Parliament on 20th October and announced the following day, raises the invalidation threshold of the EU Emissions Trading System’s market stability reserve from 400 million to 700 million allowances.

The compromise reached by EU negotiators follows months of pressure from energy-intensive industries concerned about carbon prices, electricity costs and competition from manufacturers operating under less restrictive environmental regimes.

The measure requires formal approval before entering into force and forms part of a wider review of the EU’s principal carbon-pricing mechanism.

A larger reserve for future market disruptions

Established in 2019, the market stability reserve was designed to address the accumulation of surplus emissions allowances that had weakened the effectiveness of Europe’s carbon market.

Under the Emissions Trading System, companies in covered sectors must surrender allowances corresponding to their greenhouse gas emissions. The total quantity available is progressively reduced, creating a financial incentive to cut emissions.

The reserve adjusts the supply of allowances entering the market, withdrawing them when there is a substantial surplus and releasing them under specified conditions when supply becomes scarce.

Existing rules also provide for the permanent cancellation of allowances held above a threshold of 400 million.

Under the new agreement, that threshold would increase to 700 million, allowing a larger stock to remain available for potential future release.

The change does not automatically introduce 300 million additional allowances into circulation. Releases would continue to depend on the reserve’s operating rules and market conditions.

According to the Council, more than three billion allowances have been invalidated since the mechanism began operating in 2023.

The Commission initially proposed ending automatic invalidation indefinitely, while the Council’s September negotiating position envisaged a temporary suspension followed by a higher threshold.

The compromise retains invalidation but increases the amount protected from cancellation.

Industry competitiveness enters climate negotiations

The agreement follows growing concern about the cumulative cost of European climate regulation, particularly for steelmaking, chemicals, cement and other energy-intensive sectors. Manufacturers have warned that carbon costs, combined with relatively expensive electricity and industrial gas, complicate investment decisions and weaken their ability to compete internationally.

Brussels must also consider the consequences of production shifting to jurisdictions with lower emissions-related costs, a phenomenon known as carbon leakage. Earlier this year, EU Today examined the Commission’s consideration of changes to industrial protections under the ETS, including the relationship between free allowances and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.

The latest reserve agreement does not directly change the allocation of free allowances, the emissions cap or the obligations imposed on individual industrial installations. Its principal effect would be to preserve a larger buffer that could become available if future market conditions trigger the release mechanism.

For manufacturers planning investments extending into the 2030s, the availability of allowances and the future trajectory of carbon prices influence production costs and the commercial case for decarbonisation technologies.

Carbon market figures reveal changing conditions

The European Commission reported in May that the total number of allowances in circulation during 2025 stood at approximately 1.023 billion.

Its annual market stability reserve calculation provided for approximately 190.5 million allowances to be withdrawn from auctions between September 2026 and August 2027.

These withdrawals reflect the existing mechanism for reducing market surpluses. The proposed higher invalidation threshold concerns how many allowances can subsequently remain in reserve rather than being cancelled.

The overall emissions cap will continue to decline under the legislation already governing the ETS.

Consequently, preserving a larger reserve does not remove the long-term constraint on emissions or guarantee lower carbon prices for European industry.

The agreement also concerns the established ETS covering power generation, industry and certain other sectors, rather than the separate ETS2 regime for emissions associated with road transport and buildings.

The latter has generated its own political controversy, as EU Today reported following the October European Council summit.

Broader ETS reform remains unresolved

The Council and Parliament have agreed that the question of gradually reducing the invalidation threshold should be considered during the broader ETS review.

That exercise will address the carbon market’s operation over a longer period, when the declining supply of allowances could create tighter conditions.

The present agreement therefore provides an adjustment to the reserve mechanism without reopening the entire emissions trading framework. Following legal and technical finalisation, the provisional deal must be endorsed by both institutions and formally adopted.

The new 700 million threshold would apply after the legislation takes effect, while the larger review of the ETS continues through the EU legislative process.

Italy and five other member states have failed to secure a further postponement of the EU’s new carbon market for heating and transport fuels, although European leaders have ordered a fresh assessment of its impact on households and businesses.

European Union leaders have resisted demands for another postponement of carbon pricing for road transport and building fuels, exposing deep disagreements over climate policy, industrial competitiveness and the burden of energy costs on European households.

At the European Council summit in Brussels on 15–16 October, the Visegrad countries — Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic — pressed for the second European Emissions Trading System, known as ETS2, to be delayed until 2030. Italy and Greece joined calls for greater flexibility over carbon costs, although Rome also sought a national exemption from aspects of the energy-price regime rather than simply a uniform delay. No further postponement was agreed.

The European Council conclusions call on the European Commission to update its assessment of ETS2, particularly its design and safeguards. Leaders also demanded action to reduce volatility in the existing carbon market and limit the effect of carbon prices on electricity costs.

The outcome stops short of the further postponement sought by several governments, but demonstrates how far energy affordability has moved towards the centre of European climate negotiations.

The growing rebellion over ETS2

ETS2 is designed to extend the principle of carbon pricing to fuels used for heating buildings, road transport and certain smaller industrial activities. Unlike the existing Emissions Trading System, which covers large industrial installations and power generation, the new mechanism reaches sectors closely connected to everyday household expenditure.

Under the scheme, fuel suppliers must purchase allowances corresponding to the emissions associated with the fuels they sell. Households and motorists will not buy allowances themselves, but suppliers may pass those additional costs through to customers.

That distinction is fundamental. A policy designed to encourage investment in cleaner heating systems and vehicles may initially appear to consumers as an increase in petrol, diesel and domestic heating bills.

The current legislative timetable provides for ETS2 to become operational in 2028, following an earlier one-year postponement. The latest demands from several Central European governments would push that date back to 2030.

Their argument is that consumers and smaller businesses cannot reasonably be expected to absorb another source of energy-price pressure while European economies continue to contend with geopolitical uncertainty, expensive fuel and comparatively weak industrial competitiveness.

Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš has been particularly outspoken in his criticism, arguing that carbon pricing risks weakening Europe’s industrial base and making everyday life more expensive.

Italy has supported calls for greater flexibility, with Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni presenting the discussion as part of a wider attempt to restore competitiveness and make the transition more affordable.

Why other governments opposed another delay

The initiative encountered resistance from governments concerned that repeatedly postponing established climate legislation would weaken investment certainty and reduce confidence in European policy.

The Nordic member states have been particularly reluctant to reopen the timetable. Their position reflects a broader concern that businesses investing in clean technologies need credible long-term rules, rather than legislation liable to be revised whenever political opposition intensifies.

Carbon pricing is intended to change economic incentives gradually. Higher costs for carbon-intensive fuels are supposed to make alternatives such as better-insulated buildings, electric vehicles and cleaner heating more financially attractive.

Critics of further postponement argue that delaying implementation would also delay those incentives, potentially increasing the eventual cost of reaching the Union’s emissions-reduction targets.

Yet the opposition has exposed a weakness in that argument: consumers cannot always respond quickly to price signals. A household relying on an older heating system or a worker with no practical alternative to driving may face higher costs long before affordable low-carbon options become available.

That issue has been central to earlier discussions over ETS2. EU Today reported on stronger carbon-price safeguards in June, when European institutions moved to provide additional market intervention if allowance prices rose sharply.

Commission ordered to reassess the economic impact

Rather than endorsing a new delay, European leaders have asked the Commission to review ETS2’s economic impact and safeguards.

The summit also urged faster progress on adjustments to the Market Stability Reserve, the mechanism intended to help manage the supply of carbon allowances and prevent excessive price volatility.

Under the existing scheme, market interventions can increase or reduce allowance availability in response to defined conditions. For ETS2, safeguards are especially politically sensitive because the cost of carbon allowances may ultimately be reflected in household transport and heating expenditure.

The European Commission’s updated auction arrangements already envisage auctions of ETS2 allowances beginning in 2027, ahead of the system’s operational launch in 2028.

That timetable gives governments a relatively narrow window to settle the remaining political disputes and put protective measures into effect.

A central part of the response is the Social Climate Fund, intended to support vulnerable households, transport users and small businesses through investments in energy efficiency, cleaner heating, improved transport and temporary financial assistance.

EU Today previously examined the European Investment Bank’s €3 billion advance financing initiative, which aims to accelerate support for households before the new carbon market becomes fully operational.

The central practical question is whether such assistance reaches consumers quickly enough to offset rising costs, particularly in member states where incomes are lower and households remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

Climate commitments meet industrial reality

The ETS2 dispute is connected to a broader argument over Europe’s existing carbon market and its effects on energy-intensive industries.

Manufacturers already face substantial costs arising from electricity, fuel, regulatory requirements and international competition. Governments concerned about deindustrialisation argue that European climate policy must account more directly for these pressures.

The summit conclusions acknowledged those concerns by demanding a predictable carbon market that limits price volatility and protects industry against the relocation of production to jurisdictions with less demanding environmental rules.

At the same time, leaders reaffirmed the importance of maintaining carbon pricing as an incentive for investment and emissions reduction.

For the governments seeking a postponement, the Commission’s new assessment offers an opportunity to maintain pressure for further concessions. For governments defending the existing timetable, it provides an alternative to another politically damaging delay.

The immediate result is therefore a compromise over scrutiny rather than a change in law. ETS2 remains scheduled for 2028, while Brussels must demonstrate that its safeguards can withstand both market volatility and political opposition.

The next phase will be determined less by arguments about long-term emissions targets than by the ability of EU institutions and national governments to show households and businesses how the transition can be financed without placing disproportionate costs on those least able to adjust.