California drivers sue BP, Marathon and Walmart over alleged AI-fueled gas price coordination

Drivers in California have filed a proposed class action accusing BP, Marathon and Walmart of coordinating gasoline pricing through an artificial-intelligence tool, according to a report published Tuesday.

The lawsuit targets fuel pricing at more than 1,700 California stations, alleging the companies used an AI system from Kalibrate to align their prices in ways that harmed consumers, the report said. The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a broader class of motorists who purchased gasoline during the alleged conduct.

The filing characterizes the pricing tool as capable of influencing how stations set prices, and argues that its use enabled coordination rather than independent competition, the report said. The complaint’s core claim is that the companies’ actions were not purely market-driven but instead reflected a shared strategy to manage prices across locations.

BP, Marathon and Walmart are named as defendants in the proposed class action. The report does not describe, at least in the published summary, how the plaintiffs define the relevant time period, the specific stations at issue, or the mechanism by which the alleged coordination occurred beyond the central allegation that Kalibrate was used to coordinate pricing.

The case adds to a growing debate over how algorithmic or AI-based pricing tools can be used in markets where competitors track and respond to one another’s prices. In many industries, AI and pricing optimization software are marketed as a way to respond to demand, inventory and competitor movements faster. But antitrust plaintiffs often argue that when algorithms are used in a shared or mirrored way, they can function as a de facto indicating tool, reducing price competition.

Walmart is among the retailers and operators whose fuel offerings can overlap with large branded fuel networks, depending on how sites are owned or supplied. While the company has long been known for its large number of consumer touchpoints, this dispute centers on pricing conduct at the station level rather than store merchandise, and it focuses specifically on the allegations tied to the AI pricing tool.

For the defendants, the burden in court is to rebut the plaintiffs’ allegation that independent pricing decisions were actually coordinated. The report summary does not include any statements from BP, Marathon or Walmart responding to the claims, nor does it provide details on whether the companies used Kalibrate for pricing, for forecasting, or for another purpose.

In the coming weeks, the key question for observers will be what the lawsuit alleges in greater factual detail once the complaint and any motions become available. If the case proceeds, the dispute will likely turn on evidence of coordination, the extent and manner of AI tool usage, and whether the pricing behavior is explainable as normal competition rather than an unlawful agreement. Court filings will also be important to clarify what the plaintiffs are seeking in terms of damages and injunctive relief.