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 into a lack of transparency and alleged user discrimination based on digital profiles. In this article, we will explore how Italian courts are applying new principles of algorithmic accountability and the presumption of causality introduced by European directives. We will reconstruct the legal situation through a twin educational case to illustrate the burden of proof and consumer protection strategies in an increasingly automated market.

Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence: The Dynamic Pricing Case

In brief

The case analyzes civil liability arising from the use of algorithms for dynamic pricing. Between 2024 and 2026, the regulatory development of the AI Act and Law 132/2025 defined new transparency standards. Merit courts have begun to penalize algorithmic discrimination based on devices or geolocation, applying the shift in the burden of proof and awarding damages for breach 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 Antitrust Authority (AGCM) launched investigations in 2024 to determine whether profiling algorithms altered flight prices based on the user's smartphone model or geographic location.

    Currently, the case is at the merit trial stage before the Court of Rome, Specialized Business Section, with initial rulings granting compensation to users, noting 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 failing to disclose algorithmic logic. Finally, the principle of presumption of causality under the AI Liability Directive applies, facilitating the claimant's position when the provider fails to comply with technical documentation requirements.

  3. What the jurisprudence says

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

    Judges have also ruled that industrial secrecy cannot block access to the AI's operational logic when necessary to protect fundamental or consumer rights.

  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 essential to preserve evidence of price disparity with forensic IT expert reports certifying simultaneity and differing parameters.
    2. Disclosure requests: Specific motions must be formulated based on transparency duties to obtain system logs.
    3. Assessment of proxies: Lawyers must collaborate with technical consultants to identify apparently neutral variables hiding discriminatory criteria.
    4. Corporate prevention: For in-house counsel, implementing algorithmic compliance audits is essential 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

Same caseProvider Liability for Deepfakes: The First Ruling24/09/2026Evidentiary value of the EU decision in the Euribor cartel24/09/2026Banking transparency and floor clauses in the orientation of the Joint Sections
Avv. Federico Papa
Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMContent drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction

Frequently asked questions

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

Where there is evidence or strong clues of discriminatory profiling based on the device, the legal system allows for seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, utilizing the protections of the AI Act and the Consumer Code.

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

The ordinary statute of limitations is 10 years for contractual liability and 5 years for tort liability. However, it is advisable to act promptly to facilitate the retrieval of digital evidence and system logs.

Is algorithmic price manipulation a crime?

The issue primarily has civil and administrative relevance (Antitrust sanctions). However, in extreme cases of market manipulation or aggravated fraud, criminal charges could arise, though current case law focuses on 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