Yes, in general. No US or EU law we found bans randomly testing prices on new visitors.
- New laws in 2025 and 2026 target prices set from personal data, not random tests.
- Fake discounts and charging more than the price shown are illegal almost everywhere.
- Selling to consumers in New York or the EU? Read those sections and ask a lawyer.
At a glance
| Rule | What it targets | Random price test? |
|---|---|---|
| US Robinson-Patman Act | Price discrimination on goods between business buyers | Generally not SaaS |
| FTC Act, fake “was” prices | Misleading discounts and prices | Applies: show real prices |
| New York § 349-A (2025) | Prices set by algorithm from personal data | Unclear: ask a lawyer |
| EU personalised pricing rule | Prices tailored by automated profiling | Outside the definition |
| EU Geo-blocking Regulation | Prices by nationality or residence | Not if the split is random |
| EU cookie rules | Cookies stored on the visitor’s device | Disclose; consent unclear |
US Robinson-Patman Act
- What it targets
- Price discrimination on goods between business buyers
- Random price test?
- Generally not SaaS
FTC Act, fake “was” prices
- What it targets
- Misleading discounts and prices
- Random price test?
- Applies: show real prices
New York § 349-A (2025)
- What it targets
- Prices set by algorithm from personal data
- Random price test?
- Unclear: ask a lawyer
EU personalised pricing rule
- What it targets
- Prices tailored by automated profiling
- Random price test?
- Outside the definition
EU Geo-blocking Regulation
- What it targets
- Prices by nationality or residence
- Random price test?
- Not if the split is random
EU cookie rules
- What it targets
- Cookies stored on the visitor’s device
- Random price test?
- Disclose; consent unclear
United States
Federal law
The Robinson-Patman Act bans some price discrimination, but it covers “commodities”, physical goods sold between businesses, when it hurts competition.[1] Legal commentary generally treats software and services as outside it.
The FTC’s rules on deceptive pricing do apply. A crossed-out “former price” that was never really charged is a false bargain.[2] A test price shown as a plain price, with no fake discount, avoids this.
The FTC has been studying “surveillance pricing”: prices set from someone’s location, browsing or demographics.[3] In August 2026 it proposed a policy statement that would require clear disclosure when a price is personalised from personal data.[4] It’s a proposal, and it’s about personal data, not random tests.
State laws
New York’s Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act took effect in November 2025. When a price is “set by an algorithm that uses personal data”, the seller must show “THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA”.[5][6] A random split doesn’t set the price from personal data. But the law counts data linked to a device as personal data and there’s no guidance on random tests yet, so if you sell to New York consumers, get advice.
In 2026, Maryland, Connecticut and New Jersey passed bans on surveillance pricing aimed at groceries, retail and delivery.[7] New York’s broader One Fair Price Act and California’s AB 2564 were still pending at the time of writing.
European Union
Since 2022, EU sellers must tell consumers when “the price was personalised on the basis of automated decision-making”.[8] The Commission’s guidance defines personalised pricing as customisation from profiling: “Traders gather data about individual consumers using automated decision-making to profile consumers’ behaviour.”[9] A random split profiles nobody. As we read it, it falls outside the rule, though the guidance doesn’t mention A/B tests by name.
The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive “does not, as such, prohibit traders from price discrimination as long as they adequately inform the consumer about the total price”.[10] Show the full price, taxes included where required, before checkout.
The Geo-blocking Regulation bans different prices based on a buyer’s nationality or country of residence.[11] A random split isn’t based on either. Testing different prices per country is a different matter.
The Commission is preparing a Digital Fairness Act with “unfair personalisation” in scope; the proposal hadn’t been published at the time of writing.[12]
Cookies
A test needs to remember which price a visitor saw. France’s CNIL exempts some cookies from consent, such as those needed for a shopping cart, but its guidelines don’t mention A/B tests.[13] Opinions differ, so list the cookie in your privacy and cookie policy and set it according to your consent setup. PricingFast uses one random ID, pf_vid, and no names, emails or card details.
Selling to businesses
Most consumer rules protect people buying for personal use. The EU’s consumer directives and New York’s law both define the consumer that way, so purchases by companies are mostly outside them.
Two cautions: the FTC Act isn’t limited to consumers, and many SaaS pricing pages sell to freelancers and solo founders who may count as consumers. Act as if your buyers are consumers and you won’t go wrong.
Legal isn’t the whole story
In 2000, Amazon randomly varied DVD prices for a few days. Buyers noticed, and Amazon refunded about 6,900 customers an average of $3.10, calling it “a random price test, and even that was a mistake”.[14] In 2025, Instacart ended its price tests after reports that shoppers saw different prices for the same items, even though it said the tests were random.[15]
Both were consumer retail, where shoppers compare prices item by item. SaaS buyers see a plan price once, but the lesson holds: be ready to explain a test, and to honour the lower price if asked.
Practices that keep you clear
- Charge exactly the price you show. No surprise at checkout.
- No fake discounts. Never cross out a price that wasn’t really charged.
- Assign prices at random. Never use location, device, browsing or other personal data to pick one.
- Test on new visitors only. Leave existing subscriptions alone.
- List the test cookie in your privacy and cookie policy.
- If a buyer asks, explain the test and offer the lower price.
Questions
Is it legal to show different prices to different website visitors?
In the US and the EU, no law we found bans randomly testing prices on new visitors. The rules that do exist target misleading prices (fake discounts, hidden charges) and prices personalised from someone's personal data. Rules vary by country and state, so check with a lawyer if you sell to consumers.
Is a random price test 'personalised pricing' under EU law?
The European Commission defines personalised pricing as prices tailored to a person through automated profiling. A random split doesn't profile anyone, so it falls outside that definition as we read it. The Commission's guidance doesn't mention A/B tests by name.
Do I need cookie consent for a price test in the EU?
It's unclear, and regulators haven't ruled on A/B testing cookies specifically. List the cookie in your privacy and cookie policy and set it according to your consent setup.
Does New York's algorithmic pricing law apply to A/B tests?
It requires a disclosure when a price is set by an algorithm using a consumer's personal data. A random split doesn't use personal data to set the price, but there's no official guidance on random tests yet. If you sell to New York consumers, ask a lawyer.
What should I do if a customer finds out they paid more?
Be open about it: explain that you were testing prices on new visitors, and offer to move them to the lower price. Amazon's 2000 price test backlash ended with refunds and a promise to give buyers the lowest test price.
Sources
- [1]15 U.S. Code § 13 (Robinson-Patman Act), Cornell LII
- [2]16 CFR § 233.1, Former price comparisons, Cornell LII
- [3]Surveillance pricing update and the work ahead, FTC, January 2025
- [4]FTC proposes enforcement policy statement on personalized pricing, Skadden, August 2026
- [5]New York General Business Law § 349-A, NY Senate
- [6]New York's algorithmic pricing disclosure law takes effect, Jones Day, November 2025
- [7]Legislators ramp up efforts to regulate surveillance pricing, LexisNexis
- [8]Directive (EU) 2019/2161 (Omnibus Directive), EUR-Lex
- [9]Guidance on the Consumer Rights Directive, §3.3.1, European Commission, OJ C 525, 2021
- [10]Guidance on the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, §4.2.8, European Commission, OJ C 526, 2021
- [11]Regulation (EU) 2018/302 (Geo-blocking), EUR-Lex
- [12]Digital Fairness Act, legislative train, European Parliament
- [13]Lignes directrices cookies et autres traceurs (2020-091), CNIL
- [14]Amazon.com issues statement regarding random price testing, Amazon, September 2000
- [15]Instacart ends program where users see different prices for the same item, PBS NewsHour, December 2025