The case, explained

Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence: The Dynamic Pricing Case

5 min read · Updated July 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa

The recent regulatory evolution in June 2026, with the consolidation of the implementing decrees of Law 132/2025, has highlighted the liability of companies using AI systems for dynamic pricing. According to press reports between 2023 and 2024, the phenomenon initially affected the air transport sector, leading to investigations for lack of transparency and alleged discrimination of users based on digital profiling. In this article, we explore how Italian courts are applying new principles of algorithmic accountability and the presumption of causality introduced by European directives. We reconstruct the legal scenario through a twin educational case to illustrate the burden of proof and consumer protection strategies in an increasingly automated market.

In brief

This guide analyzes civil liability stemming from the use of dynamic pricing algorithms. Between 2024 and 2026, regulatory developments under the AI Act and Law 132/2025 established strict transparency standards. Merit courts have established a trend of penalizing algorithmic discrimination based on user device or geolocation, applying the shift in the burden of proof and awarding damages for breaches of contractual fairness duties.

  1. The facts

    The case, known in the media as the Dynamic Pricing case, originates from complaints by consumer associations against major airlines, including Vueling and Ryanair. According to reports by Il Sole 24 Ore and Wired, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) launched investigations in 2024 to determine whether profiling algorithms altered flight prices based on the user's device model or geographic location.

    Currently, the case is pending at the trial stage before the Court of Rome, Specialized Enterprise Section, with initial rulings granting damages to users, finding a violation of transparency obligations imposed by the AI Act and national implementing legislation.

  2. The regulations at stake

    The regulatory framework centers on EU Regulation 2024/1689 (AI Act), which imposes transparency (Art. 52) and human oversight obligations for systems interacting with natural persons. Domestically, Art. 1218 of the Civil Code governs contractual liability for breach of the duty of good faith in price formation.

    Law 132/2025 introduced specific penalties for failure to disclose algorithmic logic. Finally, the principle of presumption of causality under the AI Liability Directive applies, facilitating the claimant's burden of proof when the provider fails to comply with technical documentation requirements.

  3. What the jurisprudence says

    Merit case law, consolidated over the last two years, has clarified that the owner of the algorithm is liable for discriminatory outcomes even if unintentional (learning bias). The prevailing orientation applies the reversal of the burden of proof: once the consumer provides circumstantial evidence of unjustified price disparity, the company must prove the system's neutrality.

    Courts have also ruled that industrial secrecy cannot block access to the operational logic of AI when necessary to protect fundamental rights or consumer interests.

  5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

    To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

    Try edit.legal AI

  8. What it teaches professionals

    1. Acquisition of digital evidence: It is crucial to preserve evidence of price disparity through forensic IT reports certifying the simultaneity and divergence of parameters used.
    2. Requests for disclosure: Specific motions for production must be submitted based on transparency duties to obtain system logs.
    3. Assessment of proxy variables: Practitioners must collaborate with technical experts to identify apparently neutral variables masking discriminatory criteria.
    4. Corporate prevention: In-house counsel must implement algorithmic compliance audits to mitigate liability risks.

References: Regolamento (UE) 2024/1689 (AI Act)Art. 1218 Codice CivileArt. 2043 Codice CivileLegge 23 settembre 2025 n. 132

Related cases

29/07/2026Press Freedom vs. Right to be Forgotten: The Privacy Authority's New Frontiers26/06/2026Damage from Lack of Informed Consent: Burden of Proof and the Right to Self-Determination27/05/2026Civil liability of platforms for AI-generated content
Avv. Federico Papa
Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAM

Frequently asked questions

Can I claim compensation if I suspect an online service price increased because I use an iPhone?

Where there is serious, precise, and consistent circumstantial evidence of discriminatory profiling based on the device used, the legal system allows action for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, leveraging the protections provided by the AI Act and the Consumer Code.

How much time do I have to take legal action against algorithmic price discrimination?

The ordinary limitation period is 10 years for contractual liability and 5 years for tort liability. However, prompt action is advisable to ensure the timely acquisition of digital evidence and system logs.

Is algorithmic price manipulation a crime?

The matter primarily has civil and administrative relevance (with sanctions from antitrust authorities). However, in severe cases of market manipulation or fraudulent conduct, criminal offenses may arise, although current case law focuses mainly on civil damages.

Verified legal research and drafting with edit.legal

Legal research and drafting with citations checked against official databases. edit.legal is free to try, no credit card.

Try edit.legal for free