Business · Companies · 2 hrs ago
FTC and 20 states sue Dollar General over alleged customer overcharges
The FTC and 20 states have sued Dollar General in federal court over alleged pricing practices at its US stores.
The lawsuit says customers were often charged more at the register than prices shown on shelves, tags and advertisements.
The agency alleges the problem persisted for years and affected millions of purchases.
Dollar General operates more than 20,000 stores, including in rural areas, and many customers rely on it for low prices.
The FTC says the company received tens of thousands of complaints and did not adequately fix the issue.
The case says low- and fixed-income shoppers were harmed by the overcharges.
Dollar General did not respond to questions about the lawsuit, but has previously said it is committed to accurate prices.
The lawsuit will now proceed in federal court; New York, which is not part of the case, separately reached a nearly $1.9 million settlement with the company earlier this month.
The Federal Trade Commission and 20 states have sued Dollar General over alleged deceptive pricing and customer overcharges.
The lawsuit says customers were routinely charged more at the register than prices shown on shelves, tags and advertisements.
The FTC alleges the practice persisted for years and generated millions of dollars in overcharges.
Dollar General has previously said it is committed to accurate prices, while arguing in court that matching shelf and register prices perfectly is not plausible or legally required.
- Who
- The Federal Trade Commission and 20 states sued Dollar General.
- What
- They accuse the retailer of deceptive pricing and overcharging customers. Dollar General has previously said it is committed to accurate prices.
- When
- The lawsuit was filed on Monday, October 26, 2026.
- Where
- The case was filed in federal court in Nashville and concerns Dollar General stores across the United States.
- Why
- The FTC alleges that customers were repeatedly charged more at checkout than the prices displayed on shelves, tags and advertisements.
FTC and 20 states
Dollar General
Pricing practices
FTC and 20 states
The FTC and states allege the company routinely charged customers more at the register than displayed prices.
Dollar General
Dollar General has said it is committed to providing accurate prices.
Price accuracy
FTC and 20 states
The lawsuit says the inaccurate pricing persisted for years and harmed consumers.
Dollar General
Dollar General’s lawyers have argued that matching shelf and scanned prices perfectly for all items is not plausible or expected under the law.
The Guardian published an investigation into Dollar General’s pricing accuracy.
Dollar General stores failed more than 4,300 government price-accuracy inspections in 23 states, according to the Guardian investigation.
New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a $1.875 million settlement with Dollar General over alleged customer overcharges in the state.
The FTC and 20 states filed their lawsuit against Dollar General in federal court in Nashville.
- Plaintiffs
- Federal Trade Commission and 20 states
- Court location
- Federal court in Nashville
- Store footprint
- More than 20,000 stores across the United States
- Inspection failures
- More than 4,300 inspections in 23 states over three years
- New York settlement
- $1.875 million
- Alleged overcharge proceeds
- Millions of dollars, according to the FTC
2 sources
What people are saying
Dollar General has betrayed the trust of millions of American consumers and imposed significant financial harm on communities and consumers who are already struggling to make their paychecks last
Dollar General has, for years, repeatedly mislabeled prices, overcharged consumers and failed to correct the issue despite extensive corporate knowledge of the problem
committed to providing customers with accurate prices on items purchased in our stores
it is virtually impossible for a retailer to match shelf pricing and scanned pricing 100% of the time for all items. Perfection in this regard is neither plausible nor expected under the law.