Inside This Report

• Three California drivers are suing roughly a dozen gas retailers, including Walmart and 7-Eleven, over alleged AI-driven price fixing.
• The software at the center of the case, made by Kalibrate, pulls in private pricing data and recommends prices in real time.
• The case leans on a newly clarified California antitrust law that treats algorithm-driven price coordination the same as a handshake deal.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

Californians already pay some of the steepest gas prices in the country. Now a new lawsuit argues that part of the reason isn't just taxes, fees, or geopolitics — it's code.

A proposed class-action complaint filed last week accuses close to a dozen companies, including retail giants Walmart and 7-Eleven, of leaning on AI-powered software to keep pump prices artificially high. The suit, brought on behalf of three California drivers, names Kalibrate, the company behind the pricing software, as a defendant alongside the gas retailers themselves.

Here's how the alleged scheme works, according to the complaint: gas stations feed private, real-time pricing data into Kalibrate's platform. The software — marketed under the name Kalibrate Fuel Prices — crunches that data and spits back price recommendations designed, in the company's own marketing language, to help retailers "squeeze out profit." The lawsuit argues that even without a single phone call or back-room meeting between competitors, the software effectively lets them coordinate, nudging prices upward in lockstep.

It's a pattern that regulators and plaintiffs' lawyers have seen before, just in different industries. In 2024, the federal government sued a company whose algorithmic software helped large landlords share private rental data and push apartment rents higher. More recently, reporting revealed that Instacart had been running AI pricing experiments that caused identical products to be priced nearly $3 apart depending on the shopper.

Robert Zeithammer, a professor at UCLA's Anderson School of Management, said he wouldn't be shocked if similar tactics are already baked into far more industries than anyone realizes — from grocery delivery to car dealerships.

The attorneys behind the gas station case, several of whom previously worked at the Federal Trade Commission during a period of aggressive antitrust enforcement, frame the shift in blunt terms. Their complaint argues that price-fixing no longer requires the old cliché of competitors cutting a secret deal in a smoke-filled room — technology now offers a quieter, arguably more effective substitute.

Walmart said it plans to address the allegations in court. Kalibrate, for its part, pushed back hard. Matias Toye, the company's legal director, said in a statement that Kalibrate disagrees with the allegations and intends to defend itself vigorously, while stressing that its fuel-pricing technology is lawful and built to serve customers.

Why This Case Could Matter Beyond the Pump

The lawsuit lands at a moment when household budgets are already stretched thin. Gallup polling shows housing and energy costs — gas included — sit at the top of Americans' financial worries. In California specifically, AAA data show regular gas recently averaged $5.43 a gallon, more than two dollars above states like Texas and Oklahoma, a gap the lawsuit attributes only partly to taxes and environmental fees.

The complaint cites outside research suggesting that when a gas station adopts algorithmic pricing software like Kalibrate's, prices tend to climb by roughly 6 cents a gallon.

Legally, the case tests a 2025 update to California's century-old antitrust statute, first enacted in 1907. Lawmakers rewrote the law to make clear that businesses don't need to explicitly talk to each other to break it — if algorithmic software leads competitors to converge on a common price, that can count as illegal coordination too.

Consumer Watchdog president Jamie Court, a longtime advocate for the update, argues the outcome is the same either way: a room full of station owners agreeing on a price would clearly violate the law, and letting an algorithm do the coordinating instead shouldn't change that.

Not everyone agreed the update was necessary or fair. The California Chamber of Commerce fought the change, with attorney Eric Enson warning lawmakers during hearings that the language swept too broadly, potentially criminalizing ordinary dynamic pricing that has nothing to do with collusion.

A Bigger Pattern of Scrutiny

This isn't the first time nonpublic pricing data funneled through AI software has drawn legal fire, and it likely won't be the last. Regulators are increasingly focused on so-called surveillance pricing — the practice of using a customer's personal data to charge them a rate tailored specifically to them, rather than a flat price for everyone.

In 2024, the FTC ordered eight major companies to disclose how they use AI and algorithms to set individualized prices. Some of those companies admitted the practice boosted revenue by 2% to 5% while also trimming costs. California lawmakers have since introduced a bill in the state Assembly aimed at banning surveillance pricing outright.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta opened his own investigation into surveillance pricing in January. Whether that inquiry produces any formal action remains unclear.

For now, the gas station lawsuit moves forward as one of the most closely watched tests of whether antitrust law, built for a world of handshake deals, can keep pace with a world run on algorithms.

Subscribe to the USA Herald newsletter for continuing coverage of this case. 👉 Follow us on X: https://x.com/RealUSAHerald