Policy · Competition & Consumer Law
Competition law compliance policy for algorithmic and AI pricing tools
Policy that controls how a business selects, configures and monitors pricing software and AI tools so they do not share competitors' sensitive information, coordinate prices or mislead customers, with approval, data, audit and escalation rules.
- Kind
- Policy. A policy or procedure for a firm or client.
- Where it applies
- Australia, European Union, United States
- AI use
- Yellow AI can help in set ways. A lawyer checks specific points before use.
- Law stated as at
- 17 October 2026
- Status
- Maintained. Checked on 17 October 2026 against the 8 authorities it cites, for Australia, European Union and United States.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use for any business that uses third-party or in-house software to set, recommend or adjust prices, discounts, rents, bids or supply levels, especially software also used by competitors. Do not use as a substitute for advice on a specific pricing tool or industry arrangement.
How AI may be used
Close supervision. AI can map a pricing tool's features and data flows against the risk list in this policy, but whether an arrangement or practice is a cartel provision or concerted practice is a competition lawyer's judgment, and the business stays liable for what its tool does.
AI may
- Extract from vendor contracts and technical documents what data the tool collects, from whom, how it is pooled and what outputs it gives.
- Draft the tool register entry and the risk questionnaire answers for review.
- Monitor pricing outputs for the red flags listed in clause 8 and report exceptions.
AI must not
- Must not conclude that a tool or arrangement is lawful.
- Must not be used to obtain, infer or share competitors' current or future prices or strategies.
- Must not be configured or prompted to align prices with competitors or to respond to signals from them.
The lawyer checks
- Each pricing tool has been reviewed and approved under clause 5 before use.
- Data inputs do not include competitors' non-public information, directly or through a vendor's pooled data.
- Delegation of pricing decisions to a vendor or common platform does not create an arrangement or understanding with competitors.
- Personalised pricing is disclosed where required and not misleading.
Method: how the Green, Yellow and Red levels are decided. This is guidance for planning, not legal advice.
Read the full text
The full text is for signed-in accounts. It is free. When you sign in you can:
- read the whole precedent, with its drafting notes beside it;
- copy it, or download it as a Word file or Markdown;
- add it to your firm’s knowledge base, so colleagues can find it;
- let the AI tools you connect read it from that knowledge base.
The summary, the law it rests on and the AI-use guidance above stay public. Privacy.
More in Competition & Consumer Law
- ACCC acquisition notification under the mandatory merger regime: preparation guide
- Consumer guarantee demand letter (repair, replace, refund or compensation)
- Unfair contract terms review checklist for standard form consumer and small business contracts
- ACCC section 155 notice: response plan, document hold notice and AI-assisted review protocol
- AI-washing and AI-generated advertising claims: substantiation checklist
- Scams Prevention Framework compliance checklist for banks, telcos and digital platforms
All precedents for Competition & Consumer Law · Tasks and AI use in this area