Washington State Sues Albertsons Over ‘Buy One Get One Free’ Pricing Practices

Washington state officials have filed a lawsuit against grocery giant Albertsons, accusing the company of misleading shoppers through its widely advertised “buy one, get one free” promotions and collecting millions of dollars in overcharges over several years.

The complaint, filed April 27 in King County Superior Court, alleges that Albertsons and its affiliated chains, including Safeway and Haggen, raised prices on certain items before placing them on promotion, then reduced those prices again after the offers ended. State officials argue the practice made the advertised discount appear larger than it was, even though the underlying price had been temporarily increased.

The state claims the strategy affected more than 3.1 million transactions in Washington between October 2019 and May 2024 and generated as much as $19.6 million tied to the alleged overcharges. The filing also alleges the promotions encouraged shoppers to choose these stores or add more items to their purchases, increasing the impact of the pricing.

Examples cited in the complaint describe price increases ranging from about 16 percent to more than 80 percent on everyday grocery items shortly before they were included in advertised deals. In each instance, prices later returned to prior levels, a pattern the state cites as evidence that the discounts did not reflect normal pricing.

Those pricing patterns form the basis of the state’s legal claims under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits businesses from using unfair or deceptive practices in the marketplace. The law looks at how a reasonable shopper would interpret an offer. A company can violate the statute even without making a false statement if the overall presentation of a deal is likely to mislead.

The lawsuit also invokes a separate state pricing law that bars businesses from presenting prices in a way that could mislead consumers. The rule is meant to ensure that advertised discounts reflect real savings and that shoppers can rely on price comparisons when deciding what to buy.

Washington officials further argue that the conduct affects the public interest, a requirement for enforcement under the Consumer Protection Act. The large number of transactions and the routine use of grocery discounts are cited as reasons the alleged practices could influence a broad group of consumers rather than isolated purchases.

The filing notes that Albertsons has previously faced claims tied to similar promotional practices, including earlier cases involving pricing disputes in the Pacific Northwest. Officials argue that those prior cases put the company on notice about concerns tied to its discount strategies.

The state is seeking a court order to stop the alleged practices, along with financial remedies that could include restitution to consumers, civil penalties for each violation, and recovery of profits tied to the conduct.

Albertsons has not yet responded to the allegations in court filings.