Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: FTC files complaint against Dollar General for systemic overcharge of customers, (Oct 27, 2026)

By Kenneth H. Ryesky, M.B.A., J.D.

Dollar General views the complaint as "unreasonable demands for redress using assumptions and methodology the Company believes are unsupported and materially overstate any alleged consumer harm."

The FTC, joined by the attorneys general and other enforcement officials of 20 states, has filed a complaint against Dollar General Corporation in a federal district court in Nashville, Tennessee, according to the agency. The complaint alleges that the prices Dollar General actually charges its customers are greater than the prices advertised. The FTC's Director of its Bureau of Consumer Protection Christopher Mufarrige stated that "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" (FTC v. Dollar General Corp., case No. 3:26-cv-01693 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 26, 2026)).

Background. The Dollar General Corporation (DG) operates a total of more than 20,800 of its eponymous Dollar General® retail stores in the 48 continental United States. The company is publicly traded. IG targets low- and fixed-income households as the market segment to which it purveys thousands of low-priced items domestic items and foods, many at a price of one dollar or less. The company business model entails physical buildings requiring low costs and capital investment, and maintaining low operating expenses including payrolls.

Following a non-public investigation, the FTC issued a Civil Investigative Demand to DG on January 30, 2026 regarding DG's marketing and advertising practices in connection with its sales. The complaint against DG alleges counts for violations of (1) the FTC Act; (2) the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act); and (3) 27 consumer statutes of the various plaintiff states.

DG advertises its products through (1) a weekly printed illustrated circular; (2) point of purchase printed advertising; (3) newspaper display advertising; (4) its Internet website; and (5) its mobile cellphone application.

The complaint alleges that the prices actually charged to DG's customers frequently differ (usually through an increase) from the prices advertised and/or displayed on the shelf tags in the store. The pricing differences were allegedly caused by understaffing of the individual stores such that they "are frequently too thinly staffed to meet the demands imposed by Dollar General’s corporate offices, meaning they lack time, for example, to print new pricing labels and affix them to shelves."

The complaint notes that DG has a history of failing many state consumer protection agency inspections and audits. Most states use the Examination Procedure for Price Verification (EPPV) standard promulgated by the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). An inaccurate pricing score taken of a randomized sample fails the EPPV if it exceeds two percent. DG stores in many states have had a high EPPV failure rate. DG "has been the subject of numerous lawsuits, settlements, and press concerning these false pricing practices," including eight class action lawsuits. DG has also settled lawsuits exceeding $1 million with New Jersey, and also with Pennsylvania and with Vermont, the latter two not being plaintiff states in the Complaint.

DG's management has been aware of its pricing discrepancy problems, and has not adequately remedied them.

FTC Act. The FTC alleges that DG has violated the FTC Act through "Misrepresentations to Consumers Regarding Product Prices." DG's failure to coordinate the inconstant weekly fluctuations of its advertised prices with the prices actually charged at checkout amount to false or misleading misrepresentations, "and constitute a deceptive act or practice" within the meaning of the FTC Act.

GLB Act. Count II of the Complaint alleges that DG's practices violate the GLB Act by using "False, Fictitious, or Fraudulent Statements to Obtain or Attempt to Obtain, or Cause to Be Disclosed or Attempt to Cause to Be Disclosed, Customer Information of a Financial Institution." This allegation is based upon the disclosure to DG of the customer's bank and/or credit card or debit card information during the payment process, including but not limited to self-checkout. The customer here was induced to enter the transaction based upon misrepresentation of an advertised price instead of the higher price actually charged to the customer. "In many instances, consumers are unable to identify pricing errors prior to or during the checkout process" due to visual ergonomics issues with the screens on the checkout equipment, and it is only after the customer returns home that the actual price exacted from the customer's bank account or credit line is discovered by the customer.

In Count II, the FTC is exercising its powers to enforce the GLB Act as it is empowered to enforce the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Case is No. 3:26-cv-01693.

Judge: Trauger, A.

Companies: Dollar General Corporation

MainStory: TopStory ConsumerProtection FederalTradeCommissionNews TennesseeNews GCNNews