Dynamic pricing corporate governance – For more than a century, prices were static declarations of intent. A price tag on a shelf was a promise: this is what the product costs, no matter who you are or when you enter the store. Pricing was a managerial decision, ultimately captured in a spreadsheet or an annual catalogue.

That world is gone.

Today, prices increasingly think for themselves. They rise, fall, adapt, anticipate and sometimes behave in ways even their creators struggle to explain. Dynamic pricing — the algorithmic adjustment of prices in real time — is no longer a niche technique from the airline industry. It is becoming the autonomous nervous system of consumer markets, influencing everything from groceries to rent, from ride-hailing to electricity tariffs.

This change is not simply technological. It is profoundly governance-sensitive, because dynamic pricing touches the very heart of the relationship between organisations and their stakeholders: fairness, transparency, accountability, market integrity and societal trust.

Recent controversies make that clear:

Wendy’s faced a storm of public outrage over “surge pricing,” not because prices changed, but because the public perceived opportunism and concealment.
Kroger and Walmart adopted digital shelf labels enabling real-time price changes while insisting they were not using surge pricing — a defensive communications stance revealing governance anxiety.
RealPage, a rental pricing platform, became the centre of a federal antitrust case after evidence suggested its algorithm contributed to near-uniform rent increases across U.S. cities, even though individual landlords never explicitly colluded.
The New York Times’ “Goodbye Price Tags. Hello Dynamic Pricing” demonstrates how invisible and commonplace algorithmic pricing already is — consumers rarely notice it until a scandal erupts.

Dynamic pricing is not inherently unethical. When governed well, it increases efficiency, reduces waste, and can even benefit consumers through timely discounts and better availability. But without robust governance, the same mechanism can create exclusion, discrimination, opacity and market manipulation — even unintentionally.

This cornerstone article explains how dynamic pricing works, why it matters for corporate governance, and how boards and audit committees can regain control over pricing systems that increasingly learn, evolve and operate with limited human oversight.

II. What Dynamic Pricing Really Is — from Human Judgment to Algorithmic Autonomy

To understand the governance implications, we need to retrace the evolution of pricing systems. Each generation added complexity, autonomy and risk.

1. First Generation: Yield Management (1970s–1990s)

Airlines and hotels pioneered dynamic pricing long before e-commerce existed. They adjusted prices based on:

Remaining capacity
Historical demand curves
Seasonal patterns
Expected demand spikes

These models were rule-based, designed by revenue managers who understood the operational context. It was sophisticated — but ultimately human-driven.

2. Second Generation: E-commerce and Real-Time Competition (2000–2015)

Large e-commerce players introduced automated price scraping and competitor-matching. Prices updated hourly or daily, based on competitor movements, inventory levels and historical purchasing patterns.

Algorithms helped, but humans still understood the rules.

3. Third Generation: Machine-Learning Models (2015–2023)

With the explosion of data and cheap compute power, machine-learning algorithms began predicting not only demand but consumer willingness to pay. These systems adapted continuously, learning from:

Item-level demand patterns
Basket composition
Customer profiles and loyalty behaviour
Time-of-day browsing patterns
Supply-chain constraints

Pricing became probabilistic, not deterministic.

4. Fourth Generation: Contextual, Autonomous, Real-Time Pricing (2023–present)

This is the world we now live in. Prices change minute-by-minute based on dozens or hundreds of signals:

Weather
Local events
Competitor behaviour
Shelf availability
Consumer identity (or proxies such as location or device)
Predicted supply-chain stress
Foot traffic at a specific store or even a specific aisle

Most critically: many pricing outcomes are not explicitly programmed. They emerge from model training and machine-learning optimisation loops.

For governance professionals, this shifts pricing from a policy decision to a model governance challenge. The board no longer approves fixed price lists. It must govern a system — a system that is dynamic, adaptive and sometimes unpredictable.

Read more on the Harvard Business School Online: What is dynamic pricing?

III. The Psychology of Pricing — Why Consumers Love Discounts but Hate Perceived Discrimination

One of the great paradoxes of dynamic pricing is this: consumers adore personalised discounts, yet detest personalised mark-ups.

Wendy’s learned this the hard way. When leaked communication suggested the chain might introduce time-based price increases (framed immediately as “surge pricing”), the public backlash was immediate and intense. The logic — off-peak discounts, peak-time adjustments — was economically sound. But emotionally, consumers felt manipulated.

Why?

Because consumers perceive dynamic price increases as a violation of fairness norms. Fairness is not purely economic; it is cultural and emotional. Research consistently shows:

People accept higher prices when caused by genuine scarcity (full flights, hotel rooms during the Olympics).
People reject higher prices when they suspect opportunistic exploitation.
People accept personalised discounts but reject personalised mark-ups.
Transparency increases acceptance; opacity destroys it.

This means dynamic pricing is not simply a technical capability — it is a soft-control environment, where trust, transparency and perceived fairness determine whether the system is socially legitimate.

Good Example — Uber:
Uber’s surge pricing is disliked but understood. The logic is explicit: high demand → higher prices → better supply. Surge pricing is visible, explained and time-limited. Consumers may complain, but they accept the reasoning.

Bad Example — Uber in Delhi and Sydney (2014–2016):
In emergencies (hostage situations, extreme weather), Uber’s surge algorithm triggered automatic price hikes. This created moral outrage and forced Uber to revise its surge governance, introducing “emergency caps”. Why? Because even rational algorithms must respect human context.

IV. When Dynamic Pricing Becomes Risky — Six Board-Level Red Flags

Dynamic pricing is not inherently dangerous. In fact, well-governed pricing models can increase efficiency, reduce waste, stimulate off-peak consumption and even improve fairness by offering discounts to those who are more price-sensitive. The risks emerge not from the concept itself but from the interaction between algorithms, human expectations and organisational blind spots.

Below are the six situations in which dynamic pricing stops being a commercial tool and becomes a board-level governance concern.

1. When the Logic Becomes Opaque — and Consumers No Longer Understand the Rules

The first red flag arises when consumers cannot make sense of price behaviour. Transparency is the oxygen of trust; without it, any price change feels arbitrary or manipulative.

Many retailers fall into this trap unintentionally. An innocuous optimisation — a minor price increase in a high-demand hour — may be perfectly rational from a revenue-management perspective. But if consumers do not understand why it is happening, they fill the information gap with assumptions: the company is greedy, unfair or exploiting them.

This is exactly what happened in the Wendy’s controversy. Even before any real implementation took place, the mere suggestion of “surge pricing” triggered public backlash. The algorithm was not the issue — the narrative vacuum was.

For boards, the opacity issue is critical. An algorithm that cannot be explained internally cannot be defended externally. And a pricing strategy that cannot be defended becomes a reputational time bomb.

2. When the System Accidentally Discriminates — Even Without Intent

The second risk is subtler but more damaging: pricing algorithms can unintentionally generate discriminatory outcomes.

This is not classic, deliberate discrimination. Rather, algorithms detect patterns and correlations that humans may overlook. A model may learn that certain ZIP codes correlate with lower price sensitivity and raise prices there. Or it may offer better deals to smartphone users while penalising people on older devices — a proxy for income levels.

No one intends harm, yet the outcome is socially corrosive.

From a governance perspective, this is the moment when the line between optimisation and social exclusion blurs. In the EU, such outcomes may trigger scrutiny under consumer-protection laws, the AI Act’s fairness requirements, and ESG expectations around inclusivity.

In other words: an algorithm does not need intent to cause reputational or regulatory damage. Boards must ensure fairness is not merely a statistical artefact but a conscious design principle.

3. When Algorithms Start Behaving Strangely — Model Drift and Unintended Strategies

Machine-learning models are powerful because they learn — but learning cuts both ways.

Models “drift” over time. Consumer behaviour changes; data quality deteriorates; new competitors enter the market. A model that was well-calibrated last quarter may behave aggressively this quarter.

There are famous examples: one Amazon book reseller saw its price escalate to more than $20 million because two automated repricing bots kept outbidding each other. Nobody intended this outcome; the algorithm was reacting perfectly to the rules it was given — but the rules themselves created absurdity.

In dynamic pricing, such drift can manifest as sudden price spikes, inexplicable volatility or highly opportunistic behaviour during supply-chain crunches.

Boards must understand that autonomy without monitoring becomes chaos. Drift detection, override capacity and escalation procedures are essential governance instruments — not technical luxuries.

4. When the Algorithm Starts Coordinating the Market — Tacit Collusion Without Human Meetings

Perhaps the most dramatic red flag arises when pricing algorithms start aligning market behaviour across competitors. This does not require secret meetings in smoky back rooms; it can happen automatically when multiple firms outsource pricing to the same or similar models.

The RealPage case illustrates this vividly. Landlords across entire U.S. cities adopted the same rental optimisation engine. The algorithm recommended rent increases based on shared data, and the market — unintentionally — began to behave as if a coordinated pricing strategy existed.

Regulators called this “algorithmic collusion,” even though the human actors never interacted.

For boards, this is a critical governance insight: delegating pricing to a third-party algorithm does not absolve firms of antitrust responsibility. On the contrary, it amplifies the exposure.

When a pricing system starts shaping the competitive landscape itself, the board must treat it as a potential antitrust instrument, not merely a commercial tool.

5. When Small Errors Become Viral — The Reputational Shock Event

Dynamic pricing models are tightly coupled to digital interfaces, which means that even minor mistakes can escalate instantly.

A shelf label showing €40 for butter might only be a temporary glitch, but once a customer photographs it and posts it online, the reputational damage is done. Ride-hailing firms have learned this repeatedly: a €120 trip during heavy rain becomes a screenshot, and the screenshot becomes a Twitter storm.

The underlying pricing logic may be rational; the public narrative never is.

Governance lesson: companies must prepare for “pricing incidents” the way they prepare for cyberattacks — with clear escalation lines, pre-approved messaging and rapid correction capacity. The question is not if an incident occurs, but when.

6. When Regulators Turn Their Attention — The Rising Tide of AI, ESG and Consumer Law

Finally, dynamic pricing becomes dangerous when boards underestimate the regulatory stakes. What feels like a clever commercial tool may in fact be a regulated activity.

The EU AI Act is increasingly concerned with systems that affect consumer rights. Competition authorities in the EU and US now consider algorithms as potential facilitators of tacit collusion. Consumer-protection agencies scrutinise fairness, transparency and algorithmic discrimination.

Boards that treat pricing as “just a commercial lever” are living in a previous era. Pricing is becoming a regulated domain, and governance must evolve accordingly.

Summary of the Governance Insight

Dynamic pricing becomes a board-level risk not when it varies, but when it:

cannot be explained,
creates unequal or discriminatory outcomes,
behaves unpredictably,
reshapes market competition,
causes reputational shocks, or
triggers regulatory interest.

In all six cases, the problem is not the algorithm but the absence of governance around it.

Read the cornerstone blog on the essentials to build good governance in Building Embedded Analytics In-House: A Governance Roadmap for CFOs and Data Leaders.

V. Case Studies — Good, Bad and Ugly Examples

A. Good Example: Airlines (mostly)

Airlines have been transparent for decades:

Prices vary by date, demand and route.
Consumers expect this variability.
Pricing logic is explained (seasonality, capacity, demand).
Regulators accept the model because it is transparent.

The governance lesson: expectations management makes dynamic pricing legitimate.

B. Good Example: European Train Operators (Off-Peak Discounts)

Train operators increasingly use dynamic off-peak discounts to spread capacity. Prices go down, not up. Consumers appreciate the fairness and logic.

C. Mixed Example: Amazon

Amazon’s pricing is dynamic but opaque. Consumers rarely understand why prices change. Although Amazon benefits from scale and trust, the model is fragile. As AI-driven pricing becomes more powerful, Amazon will face rising regulatory and societal pressure.

D. Bad Example: U.S. Grocery Chains (Real-Time Shelf Labels)

Digital shelf labels allow supermarkets to alter prices multiple times a day.
When Walmart and Kroger adopted them, they were forced to publicly deny “surge pricing” fears. This illustrates a governance gap: the technology was ready, but consumer readiness and transparency weren’t.

E. Very Bad Example: RealPage and Algorithmic Rent Collusion

RealPage recommended rent increases across thousands of apartments.
The algorithm effectively eliminated competitive tension between landlords.
The DOJ intervened; public outrage surged; litigation followed.

Governance failure: landlords outsourced pricing decisions to a shared opaque algorithm without considering antitrust implications.

F. Ugly Example: Ticketmaster “Platinum Pricing”

During high-demand events, Ticketmaster’s algorithm pushed ticket prices into the thousands — even before general sales. This created:

Public fury
Government investigations
Loss of trust
Political hearings

Poor governance + poor communication + high visibility = disaster.

VI. Governance Framework — How Boards, CFOs and Audit Committees Regain Control

Dynamic pricing demands a model governance approach, not a traditional pricing policy.

Below is a complete governance architecture.

1. COSO-Based Dynamic Pricing Governance

A. Control Environment

Ethical principles for pricing (fairness, non-exploitation, transparency).
A pricing ethics charter approved by the board.
Clear accountability: who owns the model?

B. Risk Assessment

Identify pricing risks:

Market risk
Reputational risk
Regulatory risk
Discrimination risk
Data quality risk
Model drift risk
Consumer trust risk

C. Control Activities

Model validation procedures
Guardrails for maximum price volatility
Approval workflows
Override rights for human supervisors
Alert thresholds for unexpected price behaviour

D. Information & Communication

Explainability reporting for internal stakeholders
Consumer-facing transparency principles
Pricing communication playbooks

E. Monitoring Activities

Bias audits
Fairness testing
Drift detection
External audit review where appropriate

Read our blog on COSO Internal Control Framework: Lessons from Global Corporate Failures.

2. IFRS Implications — Why Accountants Must Pay Attention

Dynamic pricing influences:

Variable consideration under IFRS 15
Revenue recognition timing
Significant estimates and judgments
Loyalty programme valuation
Contract modifications

Boards must ensure pricing engines do not create revenue volatility that internal controls cannot support.

3. CSRD & ESG Perspectives

Dynamic pricing touches the “S” and “G” components:

Consumer fairness
Inclusive pricing
Impact on vulnerable groups
Algorithmic ethics
Data governance
Transparent stakeholder reporting

Under ESRS, companies must disclose:

Material risks related to AI and algorithms
How models affect stakeholders
Governance structures around digital systems

Dynamic pricing becomes part of sustainability reporting. Read more in this blog: 2 Navigate the value chain under CSRD and ESRS – Complete comprehensive read.

4. The Audit Committee’s Role

Audit Committees should:

Treat pricing algorithms as “critical models” requiring formal oversight.
Demand model documentation equivalent to financial models.
Require periodic internal audit reviews.
Oversee compliance with competition law, consumer law and AI regulation.
Ensure that dynamic pricing does not contradict the firm’s ESG commitments.

5. Internal Audit — The Missing Link

Internal Audit must evaluate:

Data lineage
Model governance
Override logs
Incident reports
Testing environments
Supplier governance (external algorithm vendors)

Many RealPage-type failures emerge because nobody audits the algorithm itself.

Read more on Good Corporate Governance – Foundations of Trust and Accountability or AI, Audit Trails and Accountability – Why Human Confirmation Remains the Core of Governance.

VII. A Practical Blueprint for Responsible Dynamic Pricing

This section gives a hands-on governance framework — directly applicable.

1. Pricing Ethics Charter (Board Approved)

Define:

Acceptable pricing objectives
Maximum allowed volatility
Prohibited discrimination
Restrictions on personalisation
Surge governance
Principles of transparency
Data minimisation requirements

2. Algorithmic Accountability Framework

Boards should require:

Documented model architecture
Explainability methods (xAI)
Sensitivity tests
Bias detection
Model retraining standards
Human override triggers
Incident reporting lines
Audit trails

3. Model Governance Committee

Members:

Finance
Risk
Data Science
IT
Legal
ESG/CSRD
Operations
Customer Experience

Tasks:

Approve model changes
Review drift reports
Assess fairness and compliance
Evaluate incidents
Coordinate external audits

4. Consumer Transparency and Communication

Transparency builds legitimacy. Companies should publicly disclose:

What dynamic pricing is
When and why prices fluctuate
How consumer data is used (or not used)
How fairness is protected
Human override structures

5. Crisis & Reputational Risk Protocol

Include:

Pre-approved messaging
Escalation procedures
Social media monitoring
Incident classification
Rapid price correction mechanisms

Companies should rehearse “pricing crisis scenarios” just as they rehearse cybersecurity breaches.

VIII. International Regulation — The Landscape Boards Must Anticipate

European Union

EU AI Act: possible high-risk classification
Competition Law: scrutiny of tacit algorithmic collusion
Consumer Protection Law: fairness and transparency

United States

DOJ and FTC are increasingly focused on algorithm-driven coordination.
RealPage sets a critical precedent: algorithms can violate antitrust law even without human collusion.

Netherlands (ACM)

Strong focus on transparency
Zero tolerance for deceptive practices
Growing EU alignment on algorithmic fairness

IX. The Future — How Responsible Pricing Will Become a Strategic Advantage

Dynamic pricing will not disappear. It will become more:

Automated
Context-aware
Integrated across supply chains
Behaviourally intelligent
Sensitive to regulatory scrutiny

The companies that win will not be those that push consumers hardest.
They will be those that earn public trust.

Trust is the scarce asset of the 21st century.
Dynamic pricing can either erode it — or reinforce it.

Responsible Pricing Ecosystems — The Next Frontier

Boards should envision a future where:

Pricing is fair, inclusive and explainable.
Pricing is integrated with sustainability goals.
Pricing respects vulnerable groups.
Pricing aligns with the company’s societal mandate.
Algorithms are audited like financial statements.
Stakeholders see pricing as transparent, honest and legitimate.

In that world, dynamic pricing becomes not a corporate liability — but a corporate strength.

dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance dynamic pricing corporate governance

Conclusion — Governing Prices That Think

Dynamic pricing is not an IT project.
It is not a commercial tool.
It is not a marketing tactic.

It is a governance system — one that influences financial reporting, ethics, fairness, competition, sustainability, and the social license to operate.

When algorithms start setting prices, boards must start governing algorithms.

The good news?
With the right structures, guardrails and ethical foundations, dynamic pricing can deliver both economic efficiency and societal trust.

The challenge?
Without governance, pricing becomes unpredictable, unfair or even unlawful.

The choice is ours — and the board’s.

FAQs — Dynamic Pricing & Corporate Governance

FAQ 1 – Is dynamic pricing legal, and where does the biggest legal risk actually sit?

Dynamic pricing itself is legal in most jurisdictions, but legality depends heavily on how the price is determined and how transparent the process is. Consumer-protection authorities allow price variation when it is based on objective factors such as supply, demand, time of day or inventory levels. What regulators do not tolerate is pricing that is misleading, discriminatory or coordinated in a way that harms competition.
The biggest legal risk today is not “charging different prices” but algorithmic collusion. If multiple competitors use the same pricing engine or similar machine-learning models trained on overlapping datasets, regulators may argue — as in the RealPage case — that the algorithm effectively coordinates market behaviour even when humans never meet. In addition, the EU AI Act introduces fairness and transparency obligations for algorithms affecting consumers, while the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive prohibits deceptive or manipulative pricing structures.

Boards should therefore ensure:
(1) the pricing logic is explainable,
(2) the model does not rely on competitor-sensitive data,
(3) fair outcomes are monitored,
(4) suppliers of pricing algorithms undergo due diligence, and
(5) the company has a defensible narrative for regulators.

FAQ 2 – What makes consumers so sensitive to dynamic pricing compared to other algorithmic decisions?

Dynamic pricing affects consumers at the point of purchase, the most emotionally charged moment in the customer journey. Unlike targeted advertising or product recommendations — which influence but do not bind — pricing determines what consumers must pay. This triggers deep perceptions of fairness and equality, and these perceptions operate more on emotion than on logic.

Consumers are generally comfortable with predictable variation (e.g., airline tickets or hotel rooms during holidays). But they react sharply when pricing feels arbitrary, secretive, or opportunistic. A €10 difference is acceptable if it is explained by peak demand; a €2 increase without explanation feels like exploitation. Dynamic pricing becomes especially sensitive when consumers believe they are treated differently based on who they are — rather than when they shop.

This is why transparency is the decisive driver. Uber’s surge pricing model, for all its controversy, works because consumers understand its logic. Conversely, supermarket price jumps via digital shelf labels create distrust because consumers cannot see why prices shift. In short: the issue is not the variation itself, but the loss of predictability and the absence of narrative.

FAQ 3 – Why should a board or audit committee care about pricing algorithms? Isn’t this just commercial decision-making?

Boards and audit committees must recognise that dynamic pricing sits at the intersection of revenue, ethics, compliance, data governance and stakeholder trust. Once algorithms begin adjusting prices autonomously, pricing stops being a simple commercial lever and becomes a governance system with significant financial and societal implications.

Dynamic pricing affects revenue timing (IFRS 15), consumer fairness (ESG/CSRD), antitrust exposure, operational resilience, and even cybersecurity (if pricing engines are compromised). Pricing errors or drift can create material misstatements, reputational crises or legal violations. In some organisations, one misfiring algorithm has caused millions in lost revenue due to unintended discount loops; in others, pricing scandals have sparked political backlash and regulatory investigations.

For audit committees, the red flag is that many firms operate advanced pricing engines without corresponding internal controls. There is often no documentation, no model validation, no override process, and no accountability structure. In such environments, the company cannot explain — let alone defend — how a specific price emerged.

Pricing touches every “line of defence.” For that reason, dynamic pricing belongs firmly on the board’s risk agenda.

FAQ 4 – Can dynamic pricing ever be fair, transparent and socially responsible?

Yes — but only when the organisation frames pricing as a stakeholder commitment, not merely as an optimisation challenge. Responsible dynamic pricing works best when the company operates with a clear set of principles:
(1) prices must reflect rational, understandable drivers;
(2) vulnerable groups must not be penalised;
(3) personal data must not be exploited unfairly; and
(4) the logic must be explainable to a non-technical audience.

Good examples exist. European train operators use dynamic pricing to encourage off-peak travel, which reduces congestion, lowers costs, and helps lower-income passengers access discounted fares. Some retailers publish “pricing promises” that outline when and why prices may fluctuate. Energy companies increasingly disclose tariff adjustment rules ahead of time to avoid accusations of hidden mark-ups.

Fairness depends on whether consumers can recognise a coherent logic. If pricing simply reflects an algorithm’s internal optimisation — invisible and unexplainable — trust evaporates. But if pricing aligns with a broader societal purpose, such as reducing waste or distributing demand, the public accepts and even appreciates the approach.

Responsible dynamic pricing is not just possible — it can strengthen a firm’s social licence.

FAQ 5 – What internal controls and governance structures are needed to manage dynamic pricing safely?

A mature governance structure for dynamic pricing mirrors the architecture used in financial institutions for critical models. At minimum, organisations require:
A documented Pricing Ethics Charter, approved by the board, defining boundaries on fairness, discrimination, volatility, and surge policies.

Model governance, including full model documentation, version control, data lineage, training data quality assessments, drift monitoring, and regular validation.

A Model Governance Committee, combining finance, risk, legal, data science, IT, customer experience and ESG. This committee must approve model changes, review fairness metrics and escalate anomalies.

Explainability protocols, ensuring that both internal and external stakeholders can understand the pricing logic.

Override capabilities, allowing human supervisors to intervene when pricing becomes unreasonable or socially insensitive.

Incident management procedures, because pricing errors tend to escalate quickly on social media.

Independent assurance from Internal Audit, focusing on fairness testing, compliance with competition law, and CSRD-aligned transparency.

Without these structures, dynamic pricing becomes a black box — and no board can defend a black box in front of regulators or society.

FAQ 6 – How should a company prepare for a potential public backlash or pricing scandal?

The most important insight is that pricing scandals escalate faster than almost any other corporate incident. A single screenshot of an unexpected price — a €40 bottle of olive oil, a €150 ride-hailing fare during heavy rain — can ignite public outrage within minutes.
Preparation therefore begins long before any crisis erupts.
First, organisations need a clear narrative. Consumers must know — even vaguely — that the company uses dynamic pricing and why. A company that has never explained its pricing approach has no foundation on which to build credibility when a crisis hits.
Second, firms must establish rapid correction mechanisms: the ability to roll back prices, freeze the algorithm, or switch to manual control instantly. Without these capabilities, minor issues can spiral out of control.
Third, communication teams must have pre-approved messaging coordinated with legal, risk and operations. A slow or defensive response destroys trust more quickly than the pricing error itself.
Finally, the company should rehearse pricing incidents just like it rehearses cyber incidents. Who decides? Who approves messaging? Who pulls the emergency brake?
Crisis preparedness is a core element of governance. The companies that survive pricing scandals are those that treat them as foreseeable — not surprising — events.