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

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

      The lawsuit alleges that these companies contributed data to a shared algorithmic pricing software, provided by a company named Kalibrate, which the plaintiffs assert uses competitors’ pricing to suggest the prices each station should set. The drivers claim that this practice constituted a coordinated strategy that increased prices uniformly instead of through typical competitive methods.

      The numbers associated with this claim are significant. In regions where a large proportion of stations utilized the tool, the plaintiffs argue that petrol prices increased by approximately 30 cents per gallon compared to what competitive pricing would have generated, as first reported by Bloomberg. The six firms operate over 1,700 gas stations throughout the state, meaning any adjustment to their prices has considerable impact.

      These defendants include major fuel brands, convenience store chains, and supermarket fuel stations, which together represent a substantial portion of petrol sales in California, contributing to the plaintiffs' argument that the supposed effects were widely experienced.

      The lawsuit is based on two aspects of California law. The first is the Cartwright Act, the state’s primary antitrust legislation, which prohibits agreements that restrict trade. The second is a newer law, Assembly Bill 325, enacted earlier this year to specifically address algorithmic pricing practices.

      The plaintiffs contend that inputting competitors' data into a common tool exemplifies the behavior the new law was designed to target, even if no executives convened to agree on a price. This theory is central to a larger legal discussion unfolding across various US markets, from rental properties to hotels: whether software that subtly aligns competitors' decisions can violate antitrust regulations without the typical human agreement that these laws originally intended to govern.

      Regulators are becoming more cautious as AI becomes increasingly integrated into commerce, and this California case places a common product, petrol, at the core of the inquiry.

      The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages; the lawsuit does not state a specific monetary figure for the alleged harm, leaving that to be determined as proceedings advance. The defendants have yet to respond in court, and the claims remain unverified. Kalibrate is mentioned in the lawsuit as the provider of the pricing tool but is not named as a defendant, and the case is established as a proposed class action representing drivers who purchased fuel at the listed stations.

      California has historically been one of the most expensive locations in the US for refueling, which is typically attributed to state taxes, environmental regulations, and a relatively isolated network of refineries. The lawsuit introduces a software-related component to this explanation, arguing that part of the discrepancy in prices is due to coordinated pricing rather than merely structural costs.

      At this stage, the decision-making responsibilities lie with the court. The companies will need to submit their responses, and the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the shared tool resulted in an action classified as coordination by the law, rather than independent companies reaching similar conclusions based on comparable data. How a judge in Sacramento differentiates between these scenarios could influence the extent of the new law's application beyond fuel stations.