Judge Denied Class Action Against Energizer and Walmart
A federal judge declined to certify three lawsuits alleging price-fixing of batteries in California.
Updated on Sept. 29, 2026 in Retail
Live Poll
Do you believe major retailers and manufacturers often conspire to keep consumer prices artificially high?
A California federal judge has denied motions for class certification in three separate lawsuits that accused Energizer and Walmart of conspiring to keep battery prices high. The court ruled without prejudice, meaning plaintiffs may attempt to file future motions with new evidence.
Why it matters
These lawsuits sought to challenge alleged anti-competitive behavior in the battery market that purportedly harmed various tiers of consumers. The court decision halts, for now, the attempt to aggregate these individual claims into larger class actions.
A federal judge denied class certification for three distinct lawsuits involving Energizer and Walmart. These cases currently represent three separate legal challenges that are not yet aggregated into a class action.
The players
P. Casey Pitts
He is the U.S. District judge who issued the ruling regarding the class certification motions.
Energizer
This is a global manufacturer of batteries and portable power products.
Walmart
This is a multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets and grocery stores.
The details
Plaintiffs in the three cases—Portable Power, Schuman, and Copeland—represented different consumer groups, including wholesale purchasers, brick-and-mortar customers, and indirect consumers. The lawsuits alleged that the companies acted to inflate prices and eliminate competition from online retailers.
Timeline
September 28, 2026: The judge issued the denial of class certification.
Market Landscape
This ruling highlights the high procedural hurdles required to bring antitrust claims against major retailers and suppliers in the current market. The decision reflects a broader trend of courts requiring robust evidentiary support before allowing collective litigation to proceed against industry giants.
For now, shoppers and wholesale buyers will not see changes to current retail pricing or consumer protections resulting from these specific class actions. The litigation remains ongoing but is currently restricted to individual claims rather than the collective action the plaintiffs sought.
The takeaway
This case underscores that even when alleging large-scale price manipulation, plaintiffs face significant legal thresholds to demonstrate that class-wide litigation is appropriate. Consumers should remain aware that complex antitrust battles often involve years of procedural motions before reaching a resolution.
Further reading
For more on industry trends, visit the Retail section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Mlex.
Live Poll
Do you believe major retailers and manufacturers often conspire to keep consumer prices artificially high?
