Workspaces
Log in Sign up

California Drivers Launch Landmark AI Price-Fixing Lawsuit Against Gas Giants Under New AB 325 Law

Updated

Sources

California Drivers Launch Landmark AI Price-Fixing Lawsuit Against Gas Giants Under New AB 325 Law

On June 22, 2026, a group of California plaintiffs filed a major federal class-action lawsuit in Sacramento against prominent gas station operators—including BP, Marathon Petroleum, 7-Eleven, Walmart, Albertsons, and Circle K—alongside software provider Kalibrate Fuel Systems. The lawsuit alleges that the retailers used Kalibrate's AI-powered pricing algorithm to coordinate pump prices, artificially inflating gasoline prices by up to 22 cents per gallon and diesel by up to 33 cents per gallon across more than 1,700 stations in California.

This case represents one of the first major legal actions filed under California's Assembly Bill 325 (AB 325), which took effect on January 1, 2026. AB 325 is the nation's strongest state-level statute specifically targeting algorithmic price-fixing. It explicitly prohibits the use or distribution of a common pricing algorithm when competitors feed data into the same system and receive coordinated price outputs in return.1

The lawsuit also alleges violations of California's primary antitrust statute, the Cartwright Act. Recent amendments to the Cartwright Act have lowered the pleading standard for plaintiffs in algorithmic pricing cases, making it easier to survive early motions to dismiss:

"The Act was amended last year, effective January 2026, to, among other things, confirm its application to algorithmic pricing tools and allow for a potentially more plaintiff-friendly pleading standard than the one applicable to Sherman Act cases."

The legal battle centers on whether software providers like Kalibrate share antitrust liability alongside the operators who deploy their systems. The plaintiffs argue that the shared use of a common algorithm constitutes a "hub-and-spoke" conspiracy:

"At 22 cents, that's close to $3 billion annually, extracted from motorists by what plaintiffs describe as a hub-and-spoke conspiracy: Kalibrate as the hub, the competing retailers as spokes, each one separately handing pricing decisions to the same system without needing to call a rival."

  1. An instance of Dynamic pricing algorithms can no longer ingest competitor data without triggering explicit antitrust collusion. — California's strict new statute explicitly treats the ingestion of competitor-influenced data by a shared pricing algorithm as an illegal, anti-competitive hub-and-spoke conspiracy. ↩︎

Revision history

  • Create a new note tracking the landmark California gas station algorithmic pricing class action under the newly effective AB 325 law.
    · by the agent
  • Create a new note tracking the landmark California gas station algorithmic pricing class action under the newly effective AB 325 law.
    · by the agent
  • Create a new note tracking the landmark California gas station algorithmic pricing class action under the newly effective AB 325 law.
    · by the agent
  • Create a new note tracking the landmark California gas station algorithmic pricing class action under the newly effective AB 325 law.
    · by the agent
  • Create a new note tracking the landmark California gas station algorithmic pricing class action under the newly effective AB 325 law.
    · by the agent
  • Create a new note tracking the landmark California gas station algorithmic pricing class action under the newly effective AB 325 law.
    · by the agent