7-Eleven: Difference between revisions
added a lot of links (lots of links . . . ) , information, incident, impact summary, lawsuits, and essentially cleaned the article up to be more fitting of the consumer rights wiki policies. |
Minor cleanup, notices shrank, just a little bit more work and she's good to go for the wiki |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Incomplete|Issue 1= | {{Incomplete|Issue 1=Some sections not yet completed|Issue 4=}}{{CompanyCargo | ||
|Founded=1927-05-15 | |Founded=1927-05-15 | ||
|Industry=Retail | |Industry=Retail | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|Website=https://www.7-eleven.com/ | |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. | |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. | ||
}}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: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 |first=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}}</ref> | ||
==Consumer-impact summary== | ==Consumer-impact summary== | ||
{{Incomplete section}} | |||
* False Advertising | *False Advertising | ||
* Privacy Violations | *Privacy Violations | ||
* Security Vulnerabilities | *Security Vulnerabilities | ||
==Incidents== | ==Incidents== | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
|7-Eleven Collected Facial Imagery of customers in Australia | |7-Eleven Collected Facial Imagery of customers in Australia | ||
|2020 | |2020 | ||
|In June 2020, 7-Eleven introduced an survey called feedback | |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}}</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}}</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}}</ref> | ||
|7-Eleven was ordered to cease this practice and destroy any collected data. | |7-Eleven was ordered to cease this practice and destroy any collected data. | ||
| | | | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
|False advertising on JUUL e-cigarettes. | |False advertising on JUUL e-cigarettes. | ||
|2021 | |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. | |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}}</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}}</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}}</ref> | ||
|The lawsuit was settled, with 7-Eleven paying $1.2 million and having the company implement a monitoring program. | |The lawsuit was settled, with 7-Eleven paying $1.2 million and having the company implement a monitoring program. | ||
| | | | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
|7-Eleven False Advertising on Onion Chips | |7-Eleven False Advertising on Onion Chips | ||
|2021 | |2021 | ||
|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. | |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}}</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}}</ref> | ||
|The case is still ongoing | |The case is still ongoing | ||
| | | | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
|7-Eleven Collected Biometric Data of customers in Illinois | |7-Eleven Collected Biometric Data of customers in Illinois | ||
|2022 | |2022 | ||
|7-Eleven used surveillance system from Clickit to collect biometric data from customers without their knowledge, violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. | |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}}</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}}</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}}</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> | ||
|The case was dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff, however the reason or behind remains unknown. | |The case was dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff, however the reason or behind remains unknown. | ||
| | | | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
|7-Eleven false advertising Wellness Tonic as better alternative to alcohol | |7-Eleven false advertising Wellness Tonic as better alternative to alcohol | ||
|2023 | |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. | |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}}</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}}</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 |website=Court Listener}}</ref> | ||
|The case reached a settlement of $8,750,000, requiring 7-Eleven to add kratom warnings on product labels and advertisements. | |The case reached a settlement of $8,750,000, requiring 7-Eleven to add kratom warnings on product labels and advertisements. | ||
| | | | ||
|} | |} | ||
==See also<!-- Should point out any other convenience store companies that harmed consumers -->== | |||
{{Incomplete section}} | |||
* | |||
==See also== | |||
* | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||