Drivers Sue BP, Walmart and 7-Eleven Alleging Ai-Powered Fuel Pricing Secretly Inflated Petrol Prices Across the US

A group of California drivers sued BP, Walmart, 7-Eleven, Circle K, Marathon Petroleum and Albertsons on June 22, 2026, alleging the retailers used AI-powered pricing software from Kalibrate to artificially inflate gasoline prices, violating state antitrust law and a new California law targeting algorithmic price fixing. The lawsuit claims prices rose up to 30 cents per gallon in areas with high system usage, costing California drivers an estimated $134 million per year per penny increase.

Drivers Sue BP, Walmart and 7-Eleven Alleging Ai-Powered Fuel Pricing Secretly Inflated Petrol Prices Across the US California drivers allege BP, Walmart and 7-Eleven used AI pricing software to keep petrol prices artificially high. A group of California drivers has sued BP, Walmart, 7-Eleven, Circle K, Marathon Petroleum and Albertsons, accusing the fuel retailers of using artificial intelligence to keep petrol prices artificially high. The federal complaint, filed in Sacramento on 22 June 2026, alleges that an AI-based pricing tool helped inflate costs at the pump across California. The filing says the case matters because it turns a routine pricing system into a question of antitrust and algorithmic price fixing. For drivers, the alleged impact was direct: higher fuel bills in a state where petrol is already expensive and even small increases can quickly add up. The complaint says the lawsuit is drawing attention because it goes beyond a simple consumer-price dispute. It asks whether software that monitors rivals and adjusts prices automatically can amount to the same kind of coordination that antitrust law is meant to stop. AI Gas Price Lawsuit In California The complaint alleges that the defendants violated California's Cartwright Act by using an AI-based tool that drew on competing stations' data to coordinate high prices and extract more money from consumers. It also says the conduct ran against Assembly Bill 325, which took effect on 1 January and was designed to crack down on algorithmic price fixing. The filing says prices in some areas rose by as much as 30 cents a gallon where a high share of stations used the system. It also claims that every extra penny costs California drivers about $134 million, or roughly £107 million, a year. The case is being watched closely because it touches a live issue for regulators, retailers and consumers alike. If pricing decisions are increasingly made by software, the legal question is how far companies can rely on automated tools before those tools start to look like coordination. The complaint also points to the wider market effect. A pricing system that responds to competitors in real time may be efficient for retailers, but the filing argues that the same feature can reduce genuine price competition for motorists. AI-Driven Fuel Pricing Claims The filing says the pricing tool came from Kalibrate and was used to connect pricing decisions to competitors' market data. The plaintiffs describe the arrangement as an AI-powered trust that kept gasoline prices artificially high and reduced real price competition. The suit seeks unspecified damages for drivers who say they overpaid for petrol. The defendants have not been found liable, and the allegations will be tested in court. The companies named in the lawsuit have not admitted wrongdoing. Their response will be closely watched because the case could shape how future claims over AI-powered fuel pricing are argued in California and beyond. What The Case Could Mean The filing adds to growing scrutiny of whether software used in retail pricing can cross the line from efficiency into unlawful coordination. It also raises a wider question about whether existing antitrust rules are strong enough to police algorithmic pricing across consumer markets. For drivers, the allegation is simple: they say they paid more at the pump because pricing decisions were influenced by a system that reduced genuine competition. For retailers, the dispute goes to the heart of how far automated tools can be used before they become a legal risk. The case could also resonate beyond petrol stations, because similar pricing logic is used in other parts of retail. If the plaintiffs succeed, it may encourage more legal challenges over the use of AI in everyday pricing decisions. © Copyright IBTimes 2025. All rights reserved.