7-Eleven: Difference between revisions

(8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Incomplete|Issue 1=Some sections not yet completed|Issue 4=}}{{CompanyCargo

|Founded=1927~~-05-15~~

{{CompanyCargo

|Founded=15 May 1927

|Industry=Retail

|Logo=~~Wikipedia~~ 7-eleven logo.png

|Logo=7-eleven logo.png

|ParentCompany=Seven-Eleven Japan

|Type=Public subsidiary

|Website=https://www.7-eleven.com/

|Description=Founded in 1927, it's an American retailer store that is an subsidiary of Seven-Eleven Japan, which is owned by Seven & I Holdings.

}}'''~~[[wikipedia:~~7-11|7-Eleven]]''' is an American retailer store that is an subsidiary of Seven eleven Japan that is owned by Seven & I Holdings. Founded in 1927 by Joe C. Thompson''',''' originally known as Southland Ice Company, operated [[wikipedia:Ice_house_(building)|ice houses]] in Dallas Texas until it became an subsidiary of Southland Corporation. As a result of new ownership, all the retailers were named to Tote'm Stores, until renamed to 7-eleven in 1947 to reflect their new hours at 7am - 11 pm. <ref>{{Cite web |author=Popular Timelines |date=2026-01-29 |title=7-Eleven |url=https://populartimelines.com/timeline/7-Eleven |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-29 |website=Popular Timelines |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250421041952/https://populartimelines.com/timeline/7-Eleven |archive-date=21 Apr 2025}}</ref>

}}

'''{{Wplink|7-11|7-Eleven}}''' is an American retailer store that is an subsidiary of Seven eleven Japan that is owned by Seven & I Holdings. Founded in 1927 by Joe C. Thompson''',''' originally known as Southland Ice Company, operated [[wikipedia:Ice_house_(building)|ice houses]] in Dallas Texas until it became an subsidiary of Southland Corporation. As a result of new ownership, all the retailers were named to Tote'm Stores, until renamed to 7-eleven in 1947 to reflect their new hours at 7am - 11 pm. <ref>{{Cite web |author=Popular Timelines |date=2026-01-29 |title=7-Eleven |url=https://populartimelines.com/timeline/7-Eleven |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-29 |website=Popular Timelines |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250421041952/https://populartimelines.com/timeline/7-Eleven |archive-date=21 Apr 2025}}</ref>

==Consumer-impact summary==

*False Advertising

*Privacy Violations

Line 22:

Line 27:

On July 2, 2019, an customer contacted the company about unauthorized charges, resulting in an investigation

[[File:7 eleven ~~denmark~~ attack.png|alt=7-Eleven Response to Denmark Attack on Twitter|thumb|Response to Denmark Attack on Twitter]]

[[File:7-eleven Denmark attack.png|alt=7-Eleven Response to Denmark Attack on Twitter|thumb|Response to Denmark Attack on Twitter]]

that discovered hackers gaining access to some accounts,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-07-08 |title=7-Eleven Japan suspends mobile app after data breach |url=https://www.paymentsdive.com/ex/mpt/news/7-eleven-japan-suspends-mobile-app-after-data-breach/? |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Payments Dive |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250722060552/https://www.paymentsdive.com/ex/mpt/news/7-eleven-japan-suspends-mobile-app-after-data-breach/? |archive-date=22 Jul 2025}}</ref> affecting 900 customers and resulting in more than $500,000 lost in fraudulent purchases.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Coble |first=Sarah |date=2019-10-19 |title=Drivers' Data Exposed in 7-Eleven Fuel App Breach |url=https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/drivers-data-exposed-in-7eleven/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Infosecurity Magazine |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250726000525/https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/drivers-data-exposed-in-7eleven/ |archive-date=26 Jul 2025}}</ref> The company issued an apology for the incident and stated that customers will be compensated for the incident, eventually leading to the creation of the customer support emergency number to help those affected. Two Chinese men were arrested in connection with this incident.

Line 35:

Line 40:

'''<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 50:

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 70:

|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 82:

|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 88:

|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 91:

Line 98:

|

|}

==See also==

*[[QuikTrip]]

*[[Kwik Trip]]

*[[Chevron]]

*[[Shell]]

==References==

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

[[Category:Companies]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Incomplete|Issue 1=Some sections not yet completed|Issue 4=}}{{CompanyCargo
+{{Incomplete|Issue 1=Some sections not yet completed|Issue 4=}}
-|Founded=1927-05-15
+{{CompanyCargo
+|Founded=15 May 1927
 |Industry=Retail
-|Logo=Wikipedia 7-eleven logo.png
+|Logo=7-eleven logo.png
 |ParentCompany=Seven-Eleven Japan
 |Type=Public subsidiary
 |Website=https://www.7-eleven.com/
 |Description=Founded in 1927, it's an American retailer store that is an subsidiary of Seven-Eleven Japan, which is owned by Seven & I Holdings.
-}}'''[[wikipedia:7-11|7-Eleven]]''' is an American retailer store that is an subsidiary of Seven eleven Japan that is owned by Seven  & I Holdings. Founded in 1927 by Joe C. Thompson''',''' originally known as Southland Ice Company, operated [[wikipedia:Ice_house_(building)|ice houses]] in Dallas Texas until it became an subsidiary of Southland Corporation. As a result of new ownership, all the retailers were named to Tote'm Stores, until renamed to 7-eleven in 1947 to reflect their new hours at 7am - 11 pm. <ref>{{Cite web |author=Popular Timelines |date=2026-01-29 |title=7-Eleven |url=https://populartimelines.com/timeline/7-Eleven |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-29 |website=Popular Timelines |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250421041952/https://populartimelines.com/timeline/7-Eleven |archive-date=21 Apr 2025}}</ref>
+}}
+'''{{Wplink|7-11|7-Eleven}}''' is an American retailer store that is an subsidiary of Seven eleven Japan that is owned by Seven  & I Holdings. Founded in 1927 by Joe C. Thompson''',''' originally known as Southland Ice Company, operated [[wikipedia:Ice_house_(building)|ice houses]] in Dallas Texas until it became an subsidiary of Southland Corporation. As a result of new ownership, all the retailers were named to Tote'm Stores, until renamed to 7-eleven in 1947 to reflect their new hours at 7am - 11 pm. <ref>{{Cite web |author=Popular Timelines |date=2026-01-29 |title=7-Eleven |url=https://populartimelines.com/timeline/7-Eleven |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-29 |website=Popular Timelines |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250421041952/https://populartimelines.com/timeline/7-Eleven |archive-date=21 Apr 2025}}</ref>
 ==Consumer-impact summary==
+{{Ph-C-CIS}}
 *False Advertising
 *Privacy Violations
@@ Line 22: / Line 27: @@
 {{Main|link to the main CR Wiki article}}
 On July 2, 2019, an customer contacted the company about unauthorized charges, resulting in an investigation
-[[File:7 eleven denmark attack.png|alt=7-Eleven Response to Denmark Attack on Twitter|thumb|Response to Denmark Attack on Twitter]]
+[[File:7-eleven Denmark attack.png|alt=7-Eleven Response to Denmark Attack on Twitter|thumb|Response to Denmark Attack on Twitter]]
 that discovered hackers gaining access to some accounts,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-07-08 |title=7-Eleven Japan suspends mobile app after data breach |url=https://www.paymentsdive.com/ex/mpt/news/7-eleven-japan-suspends-mobile-app-after-data-breach/? |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Payments Dive |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250722060552/https://www.paymentsdive.com/ex/mpt/news/7-eleven-japan-suspends-mobile-app-after-data-breach/? |archive-date=22 Jul 2025}}</ref> affecting 900 customers and resulting in more than $500,000 lost in fraudulent purchases.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Coble |first=Sarah |date=2019-10-19 |title=Drivers' Data Exposed in 7-Eleven Fuel App Breach |url=https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/drivers-data-exposed-in-7eleven/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Infosecurity Magazine |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250726000525/https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/drivers-data-exposed-in-7eleven/ |archive-date=26 Jul 2025}}</ref> The company issued an apology for the incident and stated that customers will be compensated for the incident, eventually leading to the creation of the customer support emergency number to help those affected. Two Chinese men were arrested in connection with this incident.
@@ Line 35: / Line 40: @@
 '''<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 50: @@
 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 70: @@
 |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 82: @@
 |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 88: @@
 |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 91: / Line 98: @@
 |
 |}
 ==See also<!-- Should point out any other convenience store companies that harmed consumers -->==
 *[[QuikTrip]]
 *[[Kwik Trip]]
+*[[Chevron]]
+*[[Shell]]
 ==References==
-{{reflist}}
+{{Reflist}}
 [[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
+[[Category:Companies]]