7-Eleven: Difference between revisions

{{Main|link to the main CR Wiki article}}

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

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.     

|Description

|Result

|- valign="top"

|7-Eleven Collected Facial Imagery of customers in Australia

|In June 2020, 7-Eleven introduced an survey called feedback kiosks that customers voluntary participate in a survey about their experience. Conducted on tablets, it collected facial images of customers without their consent.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kwan |first=Campbell |date=2021-10-13 |title=7-Eleven breached customer privacy by collecting facial imagery without consent |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/7-eleven-collected-customer-facial-imagery-during-in-store-surveys-without-consent/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260131225830/https://www.zdnet.com/article/7-eleven-collected-customer-facial-imagery-during-in-store-surveys-without-consent/ |archive-date=2026-01-31 |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=ZDnet}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Marzouk |first=Zack |date=2021-10-14 |title=7-Eleven biometric data collection found in breach of Australian privacy laws |url=https://www.itpro.com/security/privacy/361232/7-eleven-biometrics-data-breached-australia-data-laws |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260131230152/https://www.itpro.com/security/privacy/361232/7-eleven-biometrics-data-breached-australia-data-laws |archive-date=2026-01-31 |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=ITPro}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-02-07 |title=Privacy and biometric information. 7-Eleven breaches customer’s privacy |url=https://kkilawyers.com.au/privacy-and-biometric-information-7-eleven-breaches-customers-privacy/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Kalus Kenny Intelex Lawyers |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250331205556/https://kkilawyers.com.au/privacy-and-biometric-information-7-eleven-breaches-customers-privacy/ |archive-date=31 Mar 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Thomas |first=Liisa |last2=Dao |first2=Anne |date=2021-11-17 |title=Australia Objects to 7-Eleven’s In-Store Use of Facial Recognition Technology |url=https://www.eyeonprivacy.com/2021/11/australia-objects-to-store-use-facial-recognition-technology/ |url-status=live |website=Sheppard Mullin |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250914220601/https://www.eyeonprivacy.com/2021/11/australia-objects-to-store-use-facial-recognition-technology/ |archive-date=14 Sep 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Chapman |first=Alex |last2=Mitchell |first2=Stefan |date=2021-10-14 |title=7-Eleven told to delete customers’ photos after facial recognition software falls under privacy commissioner’s scope |url=https://7news.com.au/technology/7-eleven-told-to-delete-customers-photos-after-facial-recognition-software-falls-under-privacy-commissioners-scope-c-4236266 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=7News |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250212011620/https://7news.com.au/technology/7-eleven-told-to-delete-customers-photos-after-facial-recognition-software-falls-under-privacy-commissioners-scope-c-4236266 |archive-date=12 Feb 2025}}</ref>

|7-Eleven was ordered to cease this practice and destroy any collected data.

|- valign="top"

|False advertising on JUUL e-cigarettes.

|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.

|- valign="top"

|7-Eleven False Advertising on Onion Chips

|A class action lawsuit alleges 7-Eleven is misleading customers with their product “Yumions” as an “crunchy onion snack”, while only containing small amounts of onions.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shaak |first=Erin |date=2021-01-12 |title=7-Eleven ‘Yumions’ Packaging Misleads Consumers About Onion Content, Class Action Says |url=https://www.classaction.org/news/7-eleven-yumions-packaging-misleads-consumers-about-onion-content-class-action-says |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Class Action |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20210811031951/https://www.classaction.org/news/7-eleven-yumions-packaging-misleads-consumers-about-onion-content-class-action-says |archive-date=11 Aug 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-01-31 |title=Yumions Crunchy Onion Snacks |url=https://truthinadvertising.org/class-action/yumions-crunchy-onion-snacks/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=Truth in Advertising |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251212032659/https://truthinadvertising.org/class-action/yumions-crunchy-onion-snacks/ |archive-date=12 Dec 2025}}</ref>

|The case is still ongoing

|- valign="top"

|7-Eleven Collected Biometric Data of customers in Illinois

|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.

|- valign="top"

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

|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.

|- valign="top"

|7-Eleven acquiring an fuel outlet without prior notice

|7-Eleven violated an 2018 FTC consent order that prohibited acquiring fuel outlets in certain local markets without first notifying Federal Trade Commission to avoid harming competition and increasing fuel prices. 7-Eleven could've faced a maximum penalty of over $77 million.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Graham |first=Victoria |date=2023-12-04 |title=FTC Sues 7-Eleven for Anticompetitive Acquisition in Violation of 2018 Consent Order |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/12/ftc-sues-7-eleven-anticompetitive-acquisition-violation-2018-consent-order |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=Federal Trade Commissions |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250914024118/https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/12/ftc-sues-7-eleven-anticompetitive-acquisition-violation-2018-consent-order |archive-date=14 Sep 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Graham |first=Victoria |date=2025-12-08 |title=7-Eleven to Pay Record $4.5 Million Penalty to Settle FTC Antitrust Order Violation Case |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/7-eleven-pay-record-45-million-penalty-settle-ftc-antitrust-order-violation-case |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-02 |website=Federal Trade Commissions |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260120225951/https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/7-eleven-pay-record-45-million-penalty-settle-ftc-antitrust-order-violation-case |archive-date=20 Jan 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Loder |first=Jessica |date=2023-12-05 |title=7-Eleven could face up to $77M in penalties in FTC lawsuit |url=https://www.cstoredive.com/news/7-eleven-77m-penalties-ftc-lawsuit/701614/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-01-31 |website=C-Store Dive |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250210045036/https://www.cstoredive.com/news/7-eleven-77m-penalties-ftc-lawsuit/701614/ |archive-date=10 Feb 2025}}</ref>

|The case was settled, with 7-Eleven paying $4.5 million on December 8, 2025.

|}

*[[QuikTrip]]

*[[Kwik Trip]]