7-Eleven: Difference between revisions

(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 35:

'''<big>7-Eleven Fuel Pump Problem</big>'''

In 2008, the Office of Fair Trading conducted an investigation in an 7-Eleven store from Australia that concluded in numerous items being overcharged. A year later, the Office of Fair Trading found that the original items were still overpriced, resulting in 7-Eleven receiving a fine of $4000. <ref>{{Cite web |last=Lawlor |first=Peter |date=2009-06-24 |title=7-Eleven store fined for false price scans |url=https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/57188 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=The Queensland Cabinet and Ministerial Directory}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Ayrouth |first=Elie |date=2011-05-17 |title=Is 7-Eleven Overcharging You At The Register? |url=https://www.foodbeast.com/news/is-7-eleven-overcharging-you-at-the-register/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=Food Beast |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260215213128/https://www.foodbeast.com/news/is-7-eleven-overcharging-you-at-the-register/ |archive-date=15 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2009-06-24 |title=7-Eleven fined for overcharging |url=https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/7eleven-fined-for-overcharging-20090624-cw5w.html |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=Brisbane Times|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260223010038/https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/7eleven-fined-for-overcharging-20090624-cw5w.html |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref>

In 2008, the Office of Fair Trading conducted an investigation in an 7-Eleven store from Australia that concluded in numerous items being overcharged. A year later, the Office of Fair Trading found that the original items were still overpriced, resulting in 7-Eleven receiving a fine of $4000. <ref>{{Cite web |last=Lawlor |first=Peter |date=2009-06-24 |title=7-Eleven store fined for false price scans |url=https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/57188 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=The Queensland Cabinet and Ministerial Directory |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260223021822/https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/57188 |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Ayrouth |first=Elie |date=2011-05-17 |title=Is 7-Eleven Overcharging You At The Register? |url=https://www.foodbeast.com/news/is-7-eleven-overcharging-you-at-the-register/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=Food Beast |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260215213128/https://www.foodbeast.com/news/is-7-eleven-overcharging-you-at-the-register/ |archive-date=15 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2009-06-24 |title=7-Eleven fined for overcharging |url=https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/7eleven-fined-for-overcharging-20090624-cw5w.html |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=Brisbane Times|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260223010038/https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/7eleven-fined-for-overcharging-20090624-cw5w.html |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref>

In 2018, it was reported that 7-Eleven was charging customers while the gas nozzle was not being used. When one customer reported this to the store clerk, the clerk responded with," there was nothing that can be done". After news of this incident gain traction with videos and news outlets reporting on the situation, 7-Eleven responded by shutting down the pumps and repairing it immediately, however it's unknown if customers were ever refunded. <ref>{{Cite web |last=Gatollari |first=Mustafa |date=2025-06-20 |title=Wonder How Long I Left It In:’ Driver Fills Up Gas at 7-Eleven. Then She Catches the Pump Still Charging After She’s Finished |url=https://www.motor1.com/news/763262/7-eleven-pump-charges-after-done-fueling/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=motor1.com |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250723101550/https://www.motor1.com/news/763262/7-eleven-pump-charges-after-done-fueling/ |archive-date=23 Jul 2025}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite web |last=Meredith |first=Michelle |date=2018-05-30 |title=Ghost gas pump charges Orange County customers while they aren’t pumping |url=https://www.wesh.com/article/ghost-gas-pump-charges-orange-county-customers-while-they-arent-pumping/20956685 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=Wesh |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20211025224103/https://www.wesh.com/article/ghost-gas-pump-charges-orange-county-customers-while-they-arent-pumping/20956685 |archive-date=25 Oct 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Derridj |first=Mustapha |date=2025-08-10 |title=She Fills Up at 7-Eleven… and Notices the Pump Keeps Charging Even After It Stops |url=https://thenewswheel.com/she-fills-up-at-7-eleven-and-notices-the-pump-keeps-charging-even-after-it-stops/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=The News Wheel |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250903114329/https://thenewswheel.com/she-fills-up-at-7-eleven-and-notices-the-pump-keeps-charging-even-after-it-stops/ |archive-date=3 Sep 2025}}</ref>

Line 45:

Another was a customer was Garret, which he responded with," I'm not getting any feedback from 7-Eleven. I'm not getting any feedback from the insurance. What do you do?"

It is unclear whether the customers gotten refunded.

On December 2025, a software glitch caused around 200 customers to pay for gas at 100 times the value, with one instance being up to $4000. Originally, store clerks refused to assist customers until numerous complaints and threats for law enforcement did 7-Eleven started refunding customer, with one instances giving a customer $500 bonus. 7-Eleven responded in a public statement saying; <ref>{{Cite web |last=Noyes |first=Dan |date=2025-12-20 |title=Computer glitch leads to Bay Area 7-Eleven customers paying 100 times more to fill up |url=https://abc7news.com/post/hundreds-bay-area-7-eleven-customers-overcharged-100-times-gas/18301544/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260224042410/https://abc7news.com/post/hundreds-bay-area-7-eleven-customers-overcharged-100-times-gas/18301544/ |archive-date=2026-02-24 |access-date=2026-02-23 |website=Abc}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Woodall |first=Angela |date=2026-01-23 |title=Charged $4K For A Tank Of Gas — 7-Eleven Glitch Slams Bay Area Customers: Report |url=https://patch.com/california/pinole-hercules/40-fill-ups-4-000-bills-7-eleven-glitch-slams-bay-area-customers |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-23 |website=Patch |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260125042556/https://patch.com/california/pinole-hercules/40-fill-ups-4-000-bills-7-eleven-glitch-slams-bay-area-customers |archive-date=25 Jan 2026}}</ref> <blockquote>"Full refunds, including fees, and an additional $500 are being issued to customers whose transactions are confirmed to have been affected. Anyone who believes they were affected and hasn't heard from us should call 1-800-255-0711 so we can verify their information and transaction" </blockquote>

=='''<big>Lawsuits</big>'''==

Line 63:

Line 65:

|False advertising on JUUL e-cigarettes.

|2021

|7-Eleven was sued for false advertising of the product, JUUL e-cigarettes, for alleging that it was a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes, which prior to 2018, claimed that it contained no nicotine.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Anna |date=2021-10-18 |title=7-Eleven Hit With Class Action for Allegedly Hiding Harmfulness of JUUL Products |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/ecigarette/7-eleven-hit-with-class-action-for-allegedly-hiding-harmfulness-of-juul-products/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Top Class Actions}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-01-31 |title=JUUL E-cigarettes Sold at 7-Eleven |url=https://truthinadvertising.org/class-action/juul-e-cigarettes-sold-at-7-eleven/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Truth in Advertising |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251211213331/https://truthinadvertising.org/class-action/juul-e-cigarettes-sold-at-7-eleven/ |archive-date=11 Dec 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Rizzi |first=Corrado |date=2021-10-18 |title=Class Action Claims 7-Eleven Failed to Warn of Juul E-Cigarette Dangers |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-claims-7-eleven-failed-to-warn-of-juul-e-cigarette-dangers |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Class Action |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20211129055212/https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-claims-7-eleven-failed-to-warn-of-juul-e-cigarette-dangers |archive-date=29 Nov 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Thrasher |first=Tyler |date=2025-09-09 |title=7-Eleven to pay $1.2 million to settle lawsuit over illegal vape sales near DC schools |url=https://www.fox5dc.com/news/7-eleven-pay-1-2-million-settle-lawsuit-over-illegal-vape-sales-near-dc-schools |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Fox5 Washington DC |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251008065822/https://www.fox5dc.com/news/7-eleven-pay-1-2-million-settle-lawsuit-over-illegal-vape-sales-near-dc-schools |archive-date=8 Oct 2025}}</ref>

|7-Eleven was sued for false advertising of the product, JUUL e-cigarettes, for alleging that it was a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes, which prior to 2018, claimed that it contained no nicotine.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Anna |date=2021-10-18 |title=7-Eleven Hit With Class Action for Allegedly Hiding Harmfulness of JUUL Products |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/ecigarette/7-eleven-hit-with-class-action-for-allegedly-hiding-harmfulness-of-juul-products/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Top Class Actions |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260223010353/https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/ecigarette/7-eleven-hit-with-class-action-for-allegedly-hiding-harmfulness-of-juul-products/ |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-01-31 |title=JUUL E-cigarettes Sold at 7-Eleven |url=https://truthinadvertising.org/class-action/juul-e-cigarettes-sold-at-7-eleven/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Truth in Advertising |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251211213331/https://truthinadvertising.org/class-action/juul-e-cigarettes-sold-at-7-eleven/ |archive-date=11 Dec 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Rizzi |first=Corrado |date=2021-10-18 |title=Class Action Claims 7-Eleven Failed to Warn of Juul E-Cigarette Dangers |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-claims-7-eleven-failed-to-warn-of-juul-e-cigarette-dangers |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Class Action |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20211129055212/https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-claims-7-eleven-failed-to-warn-of-juul-e-cigarette-dangers |archive-date=29 Nov 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Thrasher |first=Tyler |date=2025-09-09 |title=7-Eleven to pay $1.2 million to settle lawsuit over illegal vape sales near DC schools |url=https://www.fox5dc.com/news/7-eleven-pay-1-2-million-settle-lawsuit-over-illegal-vape-sales-near-dc-schools |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Fox5 Washington DC |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251008065822/https://www.fox5dc.com/news/7-eleven-pay-1-2-million-settle-lawsuit-over-illegal-vape-sales-near-dc-schools |archive-date=8 Oct 2025}}</ref>

|The lawsuit was settled, with 7-Eleven paying $1.2 million and having the company implement a monitoring program.

|

Line 75:

Line 77:

|7-Eleven Collected Biometric Data of customers in Illinois

|2022

|7-Eleven used surveillance system from Clickit to collect biometric data from customers without their knowledge, violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rizzi |first=Corrado |date=2022-04-26 |title=7-Eleven Hit with Class Action Over Alleged Collection of Biometric Data in Illinois Stores |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/7-eleven-hit-with-class-action-over-alleged-collection-of-biometric-data-in-illinois-stores |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Class Action |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240630035934/https://www.classaction.org/news/7-eleven-hit-with-class-action-over-alleged-collection-of-biometric-data-in-illinois-stores |archive-date=30 Jun 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-04-27 |title=7-Eleven Class Action Alleges Retailer Violates Customers’ Biometric Privacy |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/privacy/7-eleven-class-action-alleges-retailer-violates-customers-biometric-privacy/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Top Class Actions |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20220427163602/https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/privacy/7-eleven-class-action-alleges-retailer-violates-customers-biometric-privacy/ |archive-date=27 Apr 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-04-28 |title=7-Eleven Faces Class-Action Suit Over Collection of Biometric Customer Data |url=https://csnews.com/7-eleven-faces-class-action-suit-over-collection-biometric-customer-data |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Convenience Store News |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250212044337/https://csnews.com/7-eleven-faces-class-action-suit-over-collection-biometric-customer-data |archive-date=12 Feb 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-01-31 |title=Hess et al v. 7-Eleven, Inc. |url=https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2022cv02131/414495 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Justia Dockets & Findings}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Shah |first=Manish |date=2022-04-25 |title=Hess v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (1:22-cv-02131) |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63261889/hess-v-7-eleven-inc/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>

|7-Eleven used surveillance system from Clickit to collect biometric data from customers without their knowledge, violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rizzi |first=Corrado |date=2022-04-26 |title=7-Eleven Hit with Class Action Over Alleged Collection of Biometric Data in Illinois Stores |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/7-eleven-hit-with-class-action-over-alleged-collection-of-biometric-data-in-illinois-stores |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Class Action |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240630035934/https://www.classaction.org/news/7-eleven-hit-with-class-action-over-alleged-collection-of-biometric-data-in-illinois-stores |archive-date=30 Jun 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-04-27 |title=7-Eleven Class Action Alleges Retailer Violates Customers’ Biometric Privacy |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/privacy/7-eleven-class-action-alleges-retailer-violates-customers-biometric-privacy/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Top Class Actions |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20220427163602/https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/privacy/7-eleven-class-action-alleges-retailer-violates-customers-biometric-privacy/ |archive-date=27 Apr 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-04-28 |title=7-Eleven Faces Class-Action Suit Over Collection of Biometric Customer Data |url=https://csnews.com/7-eleven-faces-class-action-suit-over-collection-biometric-customer-data |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Convenience Store News |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250212044337/https://csnews.com/7-eleven-faces-class-action-suit-over-collection-biometric-customer-data |archive-date=12 Feb 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-01-31 |title=Hess et al v. 7-Eleven, Inc. |url=https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2022cv02131/414495 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260321181829/https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2022cv02131/414495 |archive-date=21 Mar 2026 |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Justia Dockets & Findings}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Shah |first=Manish |date=2022-04-25 |title=Hess v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (1:22-cv-02131) |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63261889/hess-v-7-eleven-inc/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260321181829/https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2022cv02131/414495 |archive-date=21 Mar 2026 |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>

|The case was dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff, however the reason or behind remains unknown.

|

Line 81:

Line 83:

|7-Eleven false advertising Wellness Tonic as better alternative to alcohol

|2023

|7-Eleven and the manufacturer, Botanic Tonics, advertised Feel Free Wellness Tonics, as a safe, sober, and healthy alternative to alcohol despite containing kratom, an addictive opioid.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mehorter |first=Kelly |date=2025-04-15 |title=$8.75 Million Botanic Tonics Settlement Reached in Feel Free Kratom Lawsuit |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/8.75-million-botanic-tonics-settlement-reached-in-feel-free-kratom-lawsuit |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Class Action |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260126154127/https://www.classaction.org/news/8.75-million-botanic-tonics-settlement-reached-in-feel-free-kratom-lawsuit |archive-date=26 Jan 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Avery |first=Brad |date=2023-04-06 |title=Class Action Alleges Feel Free, 7-Eleven Misled Consumers About Addiction Risk |url=https://www.bevnet.com/news/2023/class-action-alleges-feel-free-7-eleven-misled-consumers-about-addiction-risk/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260131234902/https://www.bevnet.com/news/2023/class-action-alleges-feel-free-7-eleven-misled-consumers-about-addiction-risk/ |archive-date=2026-01-31 |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=bevnet}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hanson |first=Natalie |date=2023-12-21 |title=7-Eleven must face liability claims over sales of a drink containing kratom |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/7-eleven-must-face-liability-claims-for-selling-drink-containing-kratom/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Courthouse News Service |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240711020904/https://www.courthousenews.com/7-eleven-must-face-liability-claims-for-selling-drink-containing-kratom/ |archive-date=11 Jul 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=~~2026~~-01-31 |title=Torres v. Botanic Tonics, LLC |url=https://~~www~~.~~courtlistener~~.com/~~opinion~~/~~9610947~~/~~torres-v-botanic-tonics-llc~~/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2023cv01460/410183/82/0.pdf |archive-date=~~2023-12~~-21|website=~~Court Listener~~}}</ref>

|7-Eleven and the manufacturer, Botanic Tonics, advertised Feel Free Wellness Tonics, as a safe, sober, and healthy alternative to alcohol despite containing kratom, an addictive opioid.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mehorter |first=Kelly |date=2025-04-15 |title=$8.75 Million Botanic Tonics Settlement Reached in Feel Free Kratom Lawsuit |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/8.75-million-botanic-tonics-settlement-reached-in-feel-free-kratom-lawsuit |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Class Action |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260126154127/https://www.classaction.org/news/8.75-million-botanic-tonics-settlement-reached-in-feel-free-kratom-lawsuit |archive-date=26 Jan 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Avery |first=Brad |date=2023-04-06 |title=Class Action Alleges Feel Free, 7-Eleven Misled Consumers About Addiction Risk |url=https://www.bevnet.com/news/2023/class-action-alleges-feel-free-7-eleven-misled-consumers-about-addiction-risk/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260131234902/https://www.bevnet.com/news/2023/class-action-alleges-feel-free-7-eleven-misled-consumers-about-addiction-risk/ |archive-date=2026-01-31 |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=bevnet}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hanson |first=Natalie |date=2023-12-21 |title=7-Eleven must face liability claims over sales of a drink containing kratom |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/7-eleven-must-face-liability-claims-for-selling-drink-containing-kratom/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Courthouse News Service |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240711020904/https://www.courthousenews.com/7-eleven-must-face-liability-claims-for-selling-drink-containing-kratom/ |archive-date=11 Jul 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Chhabria |first=Vince |date=2023-12-21 |title=Torres v. Botanic Tonics, LLC |url=https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2023cv01460/410183/82/0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260321182352if_/https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2023cv01460/410183/82/0.pdf |archive-date=21 Mar 2026 |access-date=21 Mar 2026 |website=justia.com}}</ref>

|The case reached a settlement of $8,750,000, requiring 7-Eleven to add kratom warnings on product labels and advertisements.

|

Line 94:

Line 96:

*[[QuikTrip]]

*[[Kwik Trip]]

*[[Chevron]]

*[[Shell]]

==References==

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 '''<big>7-Eleven Fuel Pump Problem</big>'''
-In 2008, the Office of Fair Trading conducted an investigation in an 7-Eleven store from Australia that concluded in numerous items being overcharged. A year later, the Office of Fair Trading found that the original items were still overpriced, resulting in 7-Eleven receiving a fine of $4000. <ref>{{Cite web |last=Lawlor |first=Peter |date=2009-06-24 |title=7-Eleven store fined for false price scans |url=https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/57188 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=The Queensland Cabinet and Ministerial Directory}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Ayrouth |first=Elie |date=2011-05-17 |title=Is 7-Eleven Overcharging You At The Register? |url=https://www.foodbeast.com/news/is-7-eleven-overcharging-you-at-the-register/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=Food Beast |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260215213128/https://www.foodbeast.com/news/is-7-eleven-overcharging-you-at-the-register/ |archive-date=15 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2009-06-24 |title=7-Eleven fined for overcharging |url=https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/7eleven-fined-for-overcharging-20090624-cw5w.html |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=Brisbane Times|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260223010038/https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/7eleven-fined-for-overcharging-20090624-cw5w.html |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref>
+In 2008, the Office of Fair Trading conducted an investigation in an 7-Eleven store from Australia that concluded in numerous items being overcharged. A year later, the Office of Fair Trading found that the original items were still overpriced, resulting in 7-Eleven receiving a fine of $4000. <ref>{{Cite web |last=Lawlor |first=Peter |date=2009-06-24 |title=7-Eleven store fined for false price scans |url=https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/57188 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=The Queensland Cabinet and Ministerial Directory |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260223021822/https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/57188 |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Ayrouth |first=Elie |date=2011-05-17 |title=Is 7-Eleven Overcharging You At The Register? |url=https://www.foodbeast.com/news/is-7-eleven-overcharging-you-at-the-register/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=Food Beast |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260215213128/https://www.foodbeast.com/news/is-7-eleven-overcharging-you-at-the-register/ |archive-date=15 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2009-06-24 |title=7-Eleven fined for overcharging |url=https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/7eleven-fined-for-overcharging-20090624-cw5w.html |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=Brisbane Times|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260223010038/https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/7eleven-fined-for-overcharging-20090624-cw5w.html |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref>
 In 2018, it was reported that 7-Eleven was charging customers while the gas nozzle was not being used. When one customer reported this to the store clerk, the clerk responded with," there was nothing that can be done".  After news of this incident gain traction with videos and news outlets reporting on the situation, 7-Eleven responded by shutting down the pumps and repairing it immediately, however it's unknown if customers were ever refunded. <ref>{{Cite web |last=Gatollari |first=Mustafa |date=2025-06-20 |title=Wonder How Long I Left It In:’ Driver Fills Up Gas at 7-Eleven. Then She Catches the Pump Still Charging After She’s Finished |url=https://www.motor1.com/news/763262/7-eleven-pump-charges-after-done-fueling/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=motor1.com |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250723101550/https://www.motor1.com/news/763262/7-eleven-pump-charges-after-done-fueling/ |archive-date=23 Jul 2025}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite web |last=Meredith |first=Michelle |date=2018-05-30 |title=Ghost gas pump charges Orange County customers while they aren’t pumping |url=https://www.wesh.com/article/ghost-gas-pump-charges-orange-county-customers-while-they-arent-pumping/20956685 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=Wesh |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20211025224103/https://www.wesh.com/article/ghost-gas-pump-charges-orange-county-customers-while-they-arent-pumping/20956685 |archive-date=25 Oct 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Derridj |first=Mustapha |date=2025-08-10 |title=She Fills Up at 7-Eleven… and Notices the Pump Keeps Charging Even After It Stops |url=https://thenewswheel.com/she-fills-up-at-7-eleven-and-notices-the-pump-keeps-charging-even-after-it-stops/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=The News Wheel |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250903114329/https://thenewswheel.com/she-fills-up-at-7-eleven-and-notices-the-pump-keeps-charging-even-after-it-stops/ |archive-date=3 Sep 2025}}</ref>
@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 Another was a customer was Garret, which he responded with," I'm not getting any feedback from 7-Eleven. I'm not getting any feedback from the insurance. What do you do?"
 It is unclear whether the customers gotten refunded.
+On December 2025, a software glitch caused around 200 customers to pay for gas at 100 times the value, with one instance being up to $4000. Originally, store clerks refused to assist customers until numerous complaints and threats for law enforcement did 7-Eleven started refunding customer, with one instances giving a customer $500 bonus. 7-Eleven responded in a public statement saying; <ref>{{Cite web |last=Noyes |first=Dan |date=2025-12-20 |title=Computer glitch leads to Bay Area 7-Eleven customers paying 100 times more to fill up |url=https://abc7news.com/post/hundreds-bay-area-7-eleven-customers-overcharged-100-times-gas/18301544/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260224042410/https://abc7news.com/post/hundreds-bay-area-7-eleven-customers-overcharged-100-times-gas/18301544/ |archive-date=2026-02-24 |access-date=2026-02-23 |website=Abc}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Woodall |first=Angela |date=2026-01-23 |title=Charged $4K For A Tank Of Gas — 7-Eleven Glitch Slams Bay Area Customers: Report |url=https://patch.com/california/pinole-hercules/40-fill-ups-4-000-bills-7-eleven-glitch-slams-bay-area-customers |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-23 |website=Patch |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260125042556/https://patch.com/california/pinole-hercules/40-fill-ups-4-000-bills-7-eleven-glitch-slams-bay-area-customers |archive-date=25 Jan 2026}}</ref> <blockquote>"Full refunds, including fees, and an additional $500 are being issued to customers whose transactions are confirmed to have been affected. Anyone who believes they were affected and hasn't heard from us should call 1-800-255-0711 so we can verify their information and transaction" </blockquote>
 =='''<big>Lawsuits</big>'''==
@@ Line 63: / Line 65: @@
 |False advertising on JUUL e-cigarettes.
 |2021
-|7-Eleven was sued for false advertising of the product, JUUL e-cigarettes, for alleging that it was a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes, which prior to 2018, claimed that it contained no nicotine.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Anna |date=2021-10-18 |title=7-Eleven Hit With Class Action for Allegedly Hiding Harmfulness of JUUL Products |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/ecigarette/7-eleven-hit-with-class-action-for-allegedly-hiding-harmfulness-of-juul-products/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Top Class Actions}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-01-31 |title=JUUL E-cigarettes Sold at 7-Eleven |url=https://truthinadvertising.org/class-action/juul-e-cigarettes-sold-at-7-eleven/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Truth in Advertising |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251211213331/https://truthinadvertising.org/class-action/juul-e-cigarettes-sold-at-7-eleven/ |archive-date=11 Dec 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Rizzi |first=Corrado |date=2021-10-18 |title=Class Action Claims 7-Eleven Failed to Warn of Juul E-Cigarette Dangers |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-claims-7-eleven-failed-to-warn-of-juul-e-cigarette-dangers |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Class Action |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20211129055212/https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-claims-7-eleven-failed-to-warn-of-juul-e-cigarette-dangers |archive-date=29 Nov 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Thrasher |first=Tyler |date=2025-09-09 |title=7-Eleven to pay $1.2 million to settle lawsuit over illegal vape sales near DC schools |url=https://www.fox5dc.com/news/7-eleven-pay-1-2-million-settle-lawsuit-over-illegal-vape-sales-near-dc-schools |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Fox5 Washington DC |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251008065822/https://www.fox5dc.com/news/7-eleven-pay-1-2-million-settle-lawsuit-over-illegal-vape-sales-near-dc-schools |archive-date=8 Oct 2025}}</ref>
+|7-Eleven was sued for false advertising of the product, JUUL e-cigarettes, for alleging that it was a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes, which prior to 2018, claimed that it contained no nicotine.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Anna |date=2021-10-18 |title=7-Eleven Hit With Class Action for Allegedly Hiding Harmfulness of JUUL Products |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/ecigarette/7-eleven-hit-with-class-action-for-allegedly-hiding-harmfulness-of-juul-products/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Top Class Actions |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260223010353/https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/ecigarette/7-eleven-hit-with-class-action-for-allegedly-hiding-harmfulness-of-juul-products/ |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-01-31 |title=JUUL E-cigarettes Sold at 7-Eleven |url=https://truthinadvertising.org/class-action/juul-e-cigarettes-sold-at-7-eleven/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Truth in Advertising |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251211213331/https://truthinadvertising.org/class-action/juul-e-cigarettes-sold-at-7-eleven/ |archive-date=11 Dec 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Rizzi |first=Corrado |date=2021-10-18 |title=Class Action Claims 7-Eleven Failed to Warn of Juul E-Cigarette Dangers |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-claims-7-eleven-failed-to-warn-of-juul-e-cigarette-dangers |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Class Action |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20211129055212/https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-claims-7-eleven-failed-to-warn-of-juul-e-cigarette-dangers |archive-date=29 Nov 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Thrasher |first=Tyler |date=2025-09-09 |title=7-Eleven to pay $1.2 million to settle lawsuit over illegal vape sales near DC schools |url=https://www.fox5dc.com/news/7-eleven-pay-1-2-million-settle-lawsuit-over-illegal-vape-sales-near-dc-schools |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Fox5 Washington DC |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251008065822/https://www.fox5dc.com/news/7-eleven-pay-1-2-million-settle-lawsuit-over-illegal-vape-sales-near-dc-schools |archive-date=8 Oct 2025}}</ref>
 |The lawsuit was settled, with 7-Eleven paying $1.2 million and having the company implement a monitoring program.
 |
@@ Line 75: / Line 77: @@
 |7-Eleven Collected Biometric Data of customers in Illinois
 |2022
-|7-Eleven used surveillance system from Clickit to collect biometric data from customers without their knowledge, violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rizzi |first=Corrado |date=2022-04-26 |title=7-Eleven Hit with Class Action Over Alleged Collection of Biometric Data in Illinois Stores |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/7-eleven-hit-with-class-action-over-alleged-collection-of-biometric-data-in-illinois-stores |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Class Action |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240630035934/https://www.classaction.org/news/7-eleven-hit-with-class-action-over-alleged-collection-of-biometric-data-in-illinois-stores |archive-date=30 Jun 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-04-27 |title=7-Eleven Class Action Alleges Retailer Violates Customers’ Biometric Privacy |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/privacy/7-eleven-class-action-alleges-retailer-violates-customers-biometric-privacy/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Top Class Actions |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20220427163602/https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/privacy/7-eleven-class-action-alleges-retailer-violates-customers-biometric-privacy/ |archive-date=27 Apr 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-04-28 |title=7-Eleven Faces Class-Action Suit Over Collection of Biometric Customer Data |url=https://csnews.com/7-eleven-faces-class-action-suit-over-collection-biometric-customer-data |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Convenience Store News |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250212044337/https://csnews.com/7-eleven-faces-class-action-suit-over-collection-biometric-customer-data |archive-date=12 Feb 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-01-31 |title=Hess et al v. 7-Eleven, Inc. |url=https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2022cv02131/414495 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Justia Dockets & Findings}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Shah |first=Manish |date=2022-04-25 |title=Hess v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (1:22-cv-02131) |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63261889/hess-v-7-eleven-inc/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>
+|7-Eleven used surveillance system from Clickit to collect biometric data from customers without their knowledge, violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rizzi |first=Corrado |date=2022-04-26 |title=7-Eleven Hit with Class Action Over Alleged Collection of Biometric Data in Illinois Stores |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/7-eleven-hit-with-class-action-over-alleged-collection-of-biometric-data-in-illinois-stores |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Class Action |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240630035934/https://www.classaction.org/news/7-eleven-hit-with-class-action-over-alleged-collection-of-biometric-data-in-illinois-stores |archive-date=30 Jun 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-04-27 |title=7-Eleven Class Action Alleges Retailer Violates Customers’ Biometric Privacy |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/privacy/7-eleven-class-action-alleges-retailer-violates-customers-biometric-privacy/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Top Class Actions |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20220427163602/https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/privacy/7-eleven-class-action-alleges-retailer-violates-customers-biometric-privacy/ |archive-date=27 Apr 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-04-28 |title=7-Eleven Faces Class-Action Suit Over Collection of Biometric Customer Data |url=https://csnews.com/7-eleven-faces-class-action-suit-over-collection-biometric-customer-data |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Convenience Store News |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250212044337/https://csnews.com/7-eleven-faces-class-action-suit-over-collection-biometric-customer-data |archive-date=12 Feb 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-01-31 |title=Hess et al v. 7-Eleven, Inc. |url=https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2022cv02131/414495 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260321181829/https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2022cv02131/414495 |archive-date=21 Mar 2026 |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Justia Dockets & Findings}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Shah |first=Manish |date=2022-04-25 |title=Hess v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (1:22-cv-02131) |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63261889/hess-v-7-eleven-inc/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260321181829/https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2022cv02131/414495 |archive-date=21 Mar 2026 |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>
 |The case was dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff,  however the reason or behind remains unknown.
 |
@@ Line 81: / Line 83: @@
 |7-Eleven false advertising Wellness Tonic as better alternative to alcohol
 |2023
-|7-Eleven and the manufacturer, Botanic Tonics, advertised Feel Free Wellness Tonics, as a safe, sober, and healthy alternative to alcohol despite containing kratom, an addictive opioid.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mehorter |first=Kelly |date=2025-04-15 |title=$8.75 Million Botanic Tonics Settlement Reached in Feel Free Kratom Lawsuit |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/8.75-million-botanic-tonics-settlement-reached-in-feel-free-kratom-lawsuit |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Class Action |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260126154127/https://www.classaction.org/news/8.75-million-botanic-tonics-settlement-reached-in-feel-free-kratom-lawsuit |archive-date=26 Jan 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Avery |first=Brad |date=2023-04-06 |title=Class Action Alleges Feel Free, 7-Eleven Misled Consumers About Addiction Risk |url=https://www.bevnet.com/news/2023/class-action-alleges-feel-free-7-eleven-misled-consumers-about-addiction-risk/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260131234902/https://www.bevnet.com/news/2023/class-action-alleges-feel-free-7-eleven-misled-consumers-about-addiction-risk/ |archive-date=2026-01-31 |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=bevnet}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hanson |first=Natalie |date=2023-12-21 |title=7-Eleven must face liability claims over sales of a drink containing kratom |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/7-eleven-must-face-liability-claims-for-selling-drink-containing-kratom/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Courthouse News Service |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240711020904/https://www.courthousenews.com/7-eleven-must-face-liability-claims-for-selling-drink-containing-kratom/ |archive-date=11 Jul 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-01-31 |title=Torres v. Botanic Tonics, LLC |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9610947/torres-v-botanic-tonics-llc/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2023cv01460/410183/82/0.pdf |archive-date=2023-12-21|website=Court Listener}}</ref>
+|7-Eleven and the manufacturer, Botanic Tonics, advertised Feel Free Wellness Tonics, as a safe, sober, and healthy alternative to alcohol despite containing kratom, an addictive opioid.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mehorter |first=Kelly |date=2025-04-15 |title=$8.75 Million Botanic Tonics Settlement Reached in Feel Free Kratom Lawsuit |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/8.75-million-botanic-tonics-settlement-reached-in-feel-free-kratom-lawsuit |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Class Action |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260126154127/https://www.classaction.org/news/8.75-million-botanic-tonics-settlement-reached-in-feel-free-kratom-lawsuit |archive-date=26 Jan 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Avery |first=Brad |date=2023-04-06 |title=Class Action Alleges Feel Free, 7-Eleven Misled Consumers About Addiction Risk |url=https://www.bevnet.com/news/2023/class-action-alleges-feel-free-7-eleven-misled-consumers-about-addiction-risk/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260131234902/https://www.bevnet.com/news/2023/class-action-alleges-feel-free-7-eleven-misled-consumers-about-addiction-risk/ |archive-date=2026-01-31 |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=bevnet}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hanson |first=Natalie |date=2023-12-21 |title=7-Eleven must face liability claims over sales of a drink containing kratom |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/7-eleven-must-face-liability-claims-for-selling-drink-containing-kratom/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Courthouse News Service |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240711020904/https://www.courthousenews.com/7-eleven-must-face-liability-claims-for-selling-drink-containing-kratom/ |archive-date=11 Jul 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Chhabria |first=Vince |date=2023-12-21 |title=Torres v. Botanic Tonics, LLC |url=https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2023cv01460/410183/82/0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260321182352if_/https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2023cv01460/410183/82/0.pdf |archive-date=21 Mar 2026 |access-date=21 Mar 2026 |website=justia.com}}</ref>
 |The case reached a settlement of $8,750,000, requiring 7-Eleven to add kratom warnings on product labels and advertisements.
 |
@@ Line 94: / Line 96: @@
 *[[QuikTrip]]
 *[[Kwik Trip]]
+*[[Chevron]]
+*[[Shell]]
 ==References==