7-Eleven: Difference between revisions

|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]]