BP, Walmart, and 7-Eleven have been sued regarding petrol prices determined by AI in California.

      A group of drivers from California has filed a lawsuit against six of the nation’s largest fuel retailers, alleging they utilized an artificial intelligence pricing tool to align petrol prices and maintain them at artificially elevated levels. The lawsuit, submitted on June 22, 2026, in federal court in Sacramento, lists BP, Circle K, Marathon Petroleum, 7-Eleven, Walmart, and Albertsons as defendants.

      The complaint states that these chains contributed data to the same algorithmic pricing software, provided by a company called Kalibrate, which the plaintiffs claim uses competitors’ prices to suggest the pricing for each station. The drivers argue that this practice constitutes a coordinated scheme that elevated prices uniformly rather than through regular competitive practices.

      The financial implications of this allegation are significant. In areas with a high proportion of stations using this tool, the plaintiffs assert that petrol prices increased by about 30 cents per gallon compared to what would be expected under competitive pricing. According to Bloomberg, these six companies operate over 1,700 filling stations in California, meaning any changes to their pricing can have a broad impact.

      The defendants include major-brand petrol stations, convenience stores, and supermarket fuel stations that collectively represent a significant portion of petrol purchases in California, which contributes to the plaintiffs' claim of widespread effects.

      The lawsuit relies on two California laws. The first is the Cartwright Act, the state's primary antitrust law, which prohibits agreements that restrict trade. The second is a newer law, Assembly Bill 325, which took effect earlier this year and was crafted specifically to regulate algorithmic pricing.

      The plaintiffs contend that using a shared tool to input rivals’ data aligns with the conduct the new law aims to address, even if no executives convened to set prices directly. This perspective is central to a broader legal issue unfolding in multiple US markets, from rental housing to hotel accommodations: whether software that subtly aligns competitors' decisions can violate antitrust laws without the traditional human agreements those laws were designed to regulate.

      Regulators are becoming increasingly cautious as AI plays a larger role in business, and the California lawsuit places a common product, petrol, at the center of this discussion. The plaintiffs are seeking damages that have not been quantified in the filing, leaving that to be discussed as the case progresses. The defendants have yet to respond in court, and the claims remain unverified.

      Kalibrate is identified in the lawsuit as the provider of the pricing tool, but not as a defendant. The case is presented as a proposed class action on behalf of drivers who purchased fuel at the listed stations.

      California has historically been one of the most expensive states for refueling, a situation often attributed to high state taxes, environmental regulations, and a relatively isolated network of refineries. This lawsuit introduces a software component to explain the price differences, suggesting that part of this gap is due to coordinated pricing rather than just typical structural costs.

      The practical next steps depend on the court. The companies must respond, and the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the shared tool resulted in behavior considered coordination according to the law, as opposed to independent firms arriving at similar conclusions from comparable data. How a judge in Sacramento interprets this distinction may influence the application of the new statute well beyond the fuel retail sector.