Yes, if you shopped at Albertsons, Safeway, or Haggen stores between October 2019 and May 2024, you may have a claim related to alleged deceptive buy-one-get-one-free (BOGO) pricing practices. The Washington State Attorney General filed suit in April 2026 alleging that Albertsons Companies artificially inflated prices before BOGO promotions and then lowered them during the promotion period—meaning customers weren’t actually getting the deals they believed they were. The lawsuit targets 3.1 million allegedly overcharged transactions and seeks damages of at least $19.6 million.
This type of pricing manipulation has been litigated before. In 2016, Albertsons settled a similar class-action lawsuit in Oregon for $107 million, with eligible customers receiving up to $200 each. The current Washington lawsuit suggests the practice may have been repeated across multiple states and store formats, potentially affecting millions of loyalty shoppers who trusted that sales promotions offered genuine savings. The King County Superior Court case is still in early stages, but customers who shopped during the alleged scheme period should understand what the allegations mean, how previous similar claims were resolved, and what steps to take if they believe they were overcharged.
Table of Contents
- What Exactly Is the Albertsons Pricing Scheme the Lawsuit Alleges?
- How Does This Deceptive Pricing Actually Hurt Consumers?
- Which Albertsons Stores and Brands Are Included in This Lawsuit?
- What Were Previous Albertsons Pricing Settlements Worth?
- What Are the Challenges in Proving You Were Overcharged?
- The 2016 Oregon BOGO Settlement: A Detailed Look at Outcomes
- The Separate TCPA Class Action Against Albertsons
What Exactly Is the Albertsons Pricing Scheme the Lawsuit Alleges?
The core allegation is that albertsons artificially inflated prices on everyday items before announcing a buy-one-get-one-free promotion, then lowered those inflated prices during the promotional period. This creates the illusion of a substantial discount when, in reality, customers were paying close to—or sometimes more than—the regular price they would have paid before the price hike. The scheme allegedly affected commonly purchased items including bread, produce, and olive oil, meaning the financial impact was distributed across many customer transactions rather than concentrated on luxury or specialty goods.
The Washington Attorney General’s investigation found that this practice occurred across 3.1 million transactions between October 2019 and May 2024. That volume of transactions resulted in at least $19.6 million in excess charges. To understand the scope, that works out to roughly $6.32 per overcharged transaction on average—not a dramatic per-item amount, but significant when multiplied across millions of shopping trips. A customer buying the same items at the same store every week during this five-year period could have been overcharged multiple times without realizing the prices had been artificially elevated before the “sale.”.
How Does This Deceptive Pricing Actually Hurt Consumers?
The harm is subtle but cumulative. When a grocery store advertises a BOGO promotion on bread, most customers assume they are getting a deal relative to the regular price they know. If the store has secretly raised the price of bread three weeks earlier and then lowered it for the BOGO week, customers believe they saved money when they actually paid the inflated price. Over thousands of transactions, this adds up significantly.
A family that shops twice per week and buys bread on each trip could absorb this manipulation dozens of times per year without ever recognizing the pattern. One important limitation is that individual recovery amounts in these cases are typically modest. The Oregon precedent settlement from 2016, while substantial at $107 million total, resulted in per-customer claims that ranged up to $200—and most claims settled for much less. This is not because Albertsons was being generous, but because the available settlement pool must be divided among hundreds of thousands or even millions of eligible claimants. Customers should not expect to receive thousands of dollars; instead, recovery might amount to $20 to $100 per household depending on shopping frequency and the final settlement structure.
Which Albertsons Stores and Brands Are Included in This Lawsuit?
The lawsuit names Albertsons Companies, Inc., Safeway, Inc., and Haggen stores as defendants. This matters because many customers may not realize they were shopping at an Albertsons subsidiary. Safeway operates independently in many regions but is owned by Albertsons Companies. Haggen is a smaller regional chain in the Pacific Northwest that is also part of the Albertsons family. If you have loyalty cards or receipts from any of these three banners, you may be affected.
The time period is specific: October 2019 through May 2024. Customers who shopped before October 2019 or after May 2024 would not be eligible for this particular claim. The lawsuit is being litigated in King County Superior Court in Washington State, which suggests it began as a state-level attorney general investigation. Future class action settlements may be limited to Washington residents, or they may be expanded to include customers in other states if similar practices are found to have occurred elsewhere. Historical precedent suggests that if a settlement is reached, notice will be sent to eligible customers, typically via mail or email if the store has loyalty program records. Customers who do not receive direct notice can often still file claims if they have qualifying receipts or proof of purchase.
What Were Previous Albertsons Pricing Settlements Worth?
The most relevant precedent is the 2016 Oregon BOGO settlement, in which Albertsons paid $107 million to resolve allegations of identical deceptive pricing practices. Eligible customers in that settlement could receive up to $200 per claim, though actual payouts varied based on the claims filed and the proof required. This provides a reasonable benchmark for what the current Washington case might settle for—though the actual outcome could be significantly higher or lower depending on what a jury might award if the case goes to trial.
Washington residents already experienced a previous Albertsons pricing settlement in 2024, addressing separate class action allegations of similar pricing manipulation. That settlement provides evidence that the company faces repeated legal exposure for these practices across multiple jurisdictions. The fact that Albertsons settled once, then allegedly engaged in similar behavior again, may influence how a court or jury views the current claims. It also means that customers who previously settled a Washington Albertsons pricing claim are not automatically excluded from the current lawsuit, though the specific eligibility rules will depend on how the settlement agreement is structured.
What Are the Challenges in Proving You Were Overcharged?
One significant challenge is that most individual customers do not retain receipts or track price histories over years. The strength of a class action is that it allows the attorney general or plaintiff’s lawyers to use aggregate data—such as store price logs, transaction records from loyalty cards, and company internal documents—to prove that a widespread pattern existed. Individual customers do not need to prove they personally paid inflated prices; they only need to show they shopped at an affected store during the relevant time period. However, customers who held loyalty cards or used payment methods that created purchase records have stronger claims than those who paid cash anonymously.
Another limitation is that settlement payouts are typically much lower than the damages alleged in the lawsuit. The lawsuit claims $19.6 million in excess charges, but that does not mean customers will recover all of that money. Attorney’s fees, administrative costs for processing claims, and other expenses reduce the pool available for customer compensation. Based on the Oregon precedent, customers might recover 10-20% of their actual overcharge, depending on claim volume and the final settlement terms. Customers should approach this opportunity as a partial recovery, not full restitution.
The 2016 Oregon BOGO Settlement: A Detailed Look at Outcomes
The 2016 Oregon Albertsons settlement is the closest historical parallel. In that case, Albertsons agreed to pay $107 million to settle allegations of identical BOGO price manipulation. Eligible customers in Oregon could file claims for refunds up to $200. The settlement required proof of purchase from affected stores during the class period.
Most claims ranged from $20 to $100, with customers who shopped frequently receiving higher payouts. The settlement process remained open for several years to allow customers time to gather receipts and file claims, though the deadline for new claims eventually closed. The Oregon case demonstrated that these pricing practices were systemic and that courts are willing to hold grocery chains accountable for deceptive promotion tactics. The fact that Albertsons faced a $107 million judgment and then allegedly continued similar practices in Washington suggests the company viewed the cost of litigation as acceptable compared to the profit gained from manipulated pricing—an important consideration when evaluating the deterrent effect of consumer litigation.
The Separate TCPA Class Action Against Albertsons
In addition to the pricing lawsuit, Albertsons Companies, Inc., Star Markets Company, Inc., Safeway, Inc., and affiliated brands face a separate class action for alleged TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act) violations. This lawsuit alleges that the company sent marketing text messages to customers who had previously asked to stop receiving them. While this is unrelated to the pricing scheme, it demonstrates a broader pattern of consumer harm and suggests that Albertsons may have been operating multiple deceptive practices simultaneously.
Customers who were both overcharged on groceries and received unwanted marketing texts may have claims in both lawsuits, though the processes and settlement structures would be separate. These two lawsuits—one addressing pricing manipulation and one addressing unauthorized marketing communications—are handled by different legal teams and courts. Customers do not need to choose between filing claims in both; they can pursue both if they have evidence supporting their eligibility in each case. The TCPA settlement will likely result in much lower per-claim payouts, as text message violations are typically valued at $500-$1,500 per claim depending on the volume of unwanted messages received, but class-wide distributions often result in smaller individual payments due to the large number of claimants.