A 2026 update to California's antitrust law makes coordinated pricing algorithms evidence of a price fixing conspiracy. A federal class action against Kalibrate, Marathon, BP, Circle K, Walmart and others is the new rule's first major test.
California's 2026 antitrust amendments were designed to catch algorithmic price-fixing. The state's first major test case asks a simple but unsettled question: does coordinated pricing software constitute collusion when no human competitor ever picks up the phone?
The complaint, Casciani et al. v. Knowledge Support Systems Inc. et al., was filed in June as a proposed federal class action in California. It accuses the operators of thousands of gas stations, including Marathon, Circle K, BP, Speedway, EG America, and Walmart, of using Kalibrate's fuel-pricing software to coordinate retail prices in violation of state antitrust law. The defendants have not yet been required to answer.
The wire-service framing of 'AI collusion' overstates the technology. Kalibrate's product is a pricing-software platform that ingests local market data, rival stations' posted prices, and station-specific costs, and recommends a retail price meant to maximize margin. When several chains in the same market rely on the same software and the same input feeds, the recommendations converge. No human competitor has to pick up the phone. The plaintiffs argue that algorithmic convergence counts, in legal terms, as an agreement.
Whether it does depends on a 2026 update to California's main antitrust statute. AB 325, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, codified that the Cartwright Act applies to shared pricing algorithms, meaning coordinated use of the same pricing software can count as evidence of an unlawful agreement rather than merely lawful parallel behavior. According to legal analyses from Alston & Bird and Morgan Lewis, the amendments took effect in 2026 and reframe how California courts evaluate parallel algorithmic pricing.
The complaint's consumer hook is research, not yet evidence. Plaintiffs cite studies finding that algorithmic fuel-pricing software correlated with average gas price increases of roughly 6 cents a gallon, and as much as 30 cents a gallon in markets where the technology is heavily deployed. That figure is an estimated association drawn from outside research, not a proven market effect; the case will have to establish the link independently to win class certification or damages.
What reaches the courtroom from the newsroom is mostly the filing itself. Coverage from the Associated Press via ABC News, the Guardian, Fortune, and a Fox 2 syndication of the wire confirms the case is filed and being litigated. None of the outlets have reported findings on the merits; the legal-doctrine question is still open.
What to watch next: a motion to dismiss is the most likely near-term filing, and the defendants' core argument will be that parallel use of a common vendor's software is not a Cartwright Act 'agreement.' If that motion fails, the case will force California courts to draw the line between efficient shared tooling and unlawful coordinated pricing. Either way, AB 325 is about to be tested in public.