California drivers are seeking damages in a new federal antitrust lawsuit accusing major fuel retailers and the pricing technology firm Kalibrate of using artificial intelligence to inflate gasoline prices across the state.
The proposed class action was filed on Monday, June 22, 2026, in federal court in Sacramento. The case names Kalibrate, BP Products North America, Marathon Petroleum, 7-Eleven and Speedway, Walmart, Circle K, and Albertsons as defendants.
Sacramento lawsuit names major fuel sellers
The complaint alleges that the companies relied on Kalibrate’s software to coordinate pump prices rather than making fully independent pricing decisions. The filing says the defendants used artificial intelligence tools to raise or stabilize retail gasoline prices in California markets.
The allegations have not been proven in court. The defendants will have an opportunity to challenge the claims through filings, motions, and later discovery if the case proceeds.
The lawsuit says the named operators control more than 1,700 fueling locations in California. That scale is central to the plaintiffs’ argument because gasoline prices are set locally and often respond to nearby competitors.
Drivers allege coordinated pump prices.
The drivers claim Kalibrate’s pricing platform acted as a common system for companies that should have been competing against one another. The complaint says the software reviewed market data, competitor prices, supply conditions, and business targets before recommending price changes.
Plaintiffs argue that the system reduced the pressure for nearby stations to undercut each other. In a competitive retail fuel market, one station may lower prices to attract drivers, forcing nearby rivals to respond.
The lawsuit alleges that shared algorithmic pricing can weaken that pressure. If several operators rely on the same pricing tool, the complaint says they may move prices in similar directions without direct conversations.
Price increases could add up.
The complaint alleges prices rose by as much as 30 cents per gallon in areas where the system was widely used. It also says each additional penny per gallon costs California drivers about $134 million per year.
Those figures make the case significant beyond one company’s software. Small changes in pump prices can lead to high statewide costs because millions of drivers buy gasoline for commuting, deliveries, school trips, and daily travel.
California drivers already face high fuel costs. On June 24, 2026, the California regular gas average was $5.535 per gallon, compared with a national regular gas average of $3.928 per gallon.
The Kalibrate platform faces scrutiny.
The complaint describes Kalibrate as a fuel pricing platform that gives retailers price recommendations based on local market conditions. Plaintiffs allege the tool used competitor data to guide pricing decisions.
The lawsuit also points to alleged “restoration” features. In fuel retailing, that term can refer to raising prices after local prices have dropped.
Plaintiffs claim those features could help stations lift prices around the same time. They argue that such moves can raise the local price floor and make discounting less common.
Kalibrate’s role is important because the lawsuit does not claim that every retailer directly communicated with every other retailer. The theory is that a shared algorithm may have served as the coordinating point.
California law targets pricing algorithms.
The lawsuit cites California’s Cartwright Act and Assembly Bill 325. AB 325 took effect on January 1, 2026, and directly addresses common pricing algorithms.
The law says it is unlawful to use or distribute a common pricing algorithm as part of an agreement that restrains trade. It also defines a common pricing algorithm as technology used by two or more people that relies on competitor data to recommend, align, stabilize, set, or influence price.
That language gives the case a newer legal foundation. The statute bars common pricing algorithms when they are tied to anticompetitive agreements or coercive adoption of recommended prices.
The court will still have to decide whether the plaintiffs have pleaded enough facts. The legal question is not whether pricing software exists, but whether its use crossed into unlawful coordination.
Fuel market already under review
California’s fuel market has been under government scrutiny for years due to high prices, refinery margins, supply disruptions, and concerns about market concentration.
The state created the Division of Petroleum Market Oversight in 2023 under the Gas Price Gouging and Transparency Law. The watchdog oversees transportation fuels markets through investigations, economic analysis, and policy recommendations.
That context matters because the lawsuit lands in a state that is already examining how gasoline prices are set. Regulators have looked at refinery operations, supply constraints, wholesale margins, and retail price behavior.
The AI allegations add a different layer. The case asks whether software helped retailers preserve higher pump prices beyond ordinary market costs.
California prices have several drivers.
California gasoline often costs more than fuel in other states, for reasons unrelated to the lawsuit. State officials list crude oil costs, refinery operations, distribution, marketing, and profits as major price factors.
California also has an isolated fuel market. Gasoline sold in the state is refined locally or shipped in by vessel, with no inbound pipelines bringing gasoline from other states.
The state also uses a cleaner-burning gasoline blend and has environmental program costs and taxes. Those factors are among the drivers of California gasoline prices that have long affected pump prices.
The lawsuit does not erase those costs. It argues that algorithmic pricing may have added an unlawful layer on top of them.
Defendants expected to contest claims
The defendants may argue that pricing software is a lawful business tool. Fuel retailers commonly use data systems to track demand, inventory, wholesale costs, local competition, and margins.
They may also argue that retailers remained free to accept, reject, or change software recommendations. That point could become central as the case moves forward.
Plaintiffs will likely seek evidence showing how often price recommendations were accepted. They may also seek contracts, internal communications, software settings, pricing logs, and records showing how the system handled competitor data.
The court may examine whether the companies knew rivals were using the same platform. It may also examine whether the software produced similar pricing behavior in affected markets.
The federal court will test claims.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for drivers who allegedly overpaid for gasoline. It also seeks court action to stop the challenged use of the pricing system.
No judge has ruled that Kalibrate or the fuel sellers violated antitrust law. The case remains in its early stage in the Sacramento federal court.
The next major step is expected to be the defendants’ responses. Those filings will show whether the case moves toward discovery or faces an early attempt at dismissal.
