More trending. Washington State sues Albertsons, Safeway over 'deceptive' BOGO deals. The state claims the grocery store chain inflated prices before lowering them as part of its promotion. April 28, 2026, 8:09 AM PDT / Source: TODAY The state of Washington has filed a lawsuit against Albertsons grocery store chain, claiming it overcharged customers as part of its buy-one, get-one-free promotions. The lawsuit claims Albertsons raised prices on items before the BOGO deals kick in, only to lower them after the offer ends. "The stores artificially hike prices of products slated for the supposed specials in the weeks or months leading up to a 'buy one get one free' promotion, overcharging customers who purchase in the interim," the Washington State Office of the Attorney General said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "Then they lower the prices within about 30 days after the deal is over. The net result is that consumers think they're getting a second item free, but in practice, they're just paying an inflated price for the first item." ADVERTISING Albertsons is accused of overcharging customers on more than three million transactions between October 2019 and May 2024, resulting in more than $19 million in sales. "We're not going to stand for people getting fleeced by these deceptive practices," Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said. "That's why we've filed this case. We want to make sure we're protecting people's pocketbooks, and we all know that affordability is a major issue these days. We've got to push back when companies are misleading their customers." When reached for comment, Albertsons issued the following statement to TODAY.com: "We are aware that the Washington Attorney General has filed a lawsuit related to certain buy-one-get-one promotions. We engaged in good faith discussions with the Attorney General's Office and strongly disagree with its claims, which are based on flawed analysis and data errors that we identified and raised. Albertsons Companies is committed to complying with the law and to offering customers clear value through our promotions. As this is pending litigation, we will address the matter through the legal process and cannot comment further." The lawsuit cites multiple examples where prices were raised on items such as bread, fruit, olives and olive oil before BOGO deals went into effect, while they were lowered once the promotions ended. Albertsons also owns the Safeway and Haggen grocery store chains. Safeway was also named in the lawsuit. Brown wants the court to rule the stores violated state law and put an end to the defendants' use of unfair and deceptive BOGO promotions, as well as "provide restitution to Washington consumers, and pay civil penalties for each violation of state law as well as pre-judgment interest." Albertsons settled a 2016 class action lawsuit by paying $107 million in connection with deceptive practices in BOGO deals in its Oregon stores. The company also settled a separate 2023 class action lawsuit related to deceptive BOGO offers in Washington state. Drew Weisholtz is a reporter for TODAY Digital, focusing on pop culture, nostalgia and trending stories. He has seen every episode of "Saved by the Bell" at least 50 times, longs to perfect the crane kick from "The Karate Kid" and performs stand-up comedy, while also cheering on the New York Yankees and New York Giants. A graduate of Rutgers University, he is the married father of two kids who believe he is ridiculous.

WATCH: DOR moves forward with hiring blitz as lawsuits target WA income tax. April 11, 2026 (The Center Square) - As Washington state prepares to collect its first-ever income tax on millionaires, one state agency is gearing up for a major hiring blitz to handle the administrative workload of ensuring millionaires pay what they will owe. The tax doesn't officially start until 2029, but the Department of Revenue is planning now to hire more than 300 new government employees over the next few years, with the first of those new employees to be hired this summer. The legal challenges against the tax are ramping up. "I think the amount of money and the number of people they're hiring exposes exactly what we've been saying in that this is not designed to be a small, limited tax on a small number of people," said Let's Go Washington Founder Brian Heywood in a Friday morning interview with The Center Square. "This is putting in place the infrastructure for a broad income tax." The tax is expected to collect between $3 billion and $4 billion from more than 20,000 wealthy households every year, starting in 2029. Between employee government payroll and benefits and new office equipment and software, the state expects to spend more than $557 million by the time the tax kicks in. - Advertisement - A large chunk of that is for expanded tax subsidies for the Working Families Tax Credit included in the bill, but according to DOR, about $45 million will cover the wages of the hundreds of new state employees, as reported by The Seattle Times. "It's clear that they're building out an infrastructure to collect a broad-based income tax," Heywood said. "There's no doubt about that. Any of them that say they're not doing it are just straight up lying to the public." On Thursday, former Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna, Citizen Action Defense Fund (CADF) and former Supreme Court Justice and State Senator Phil Talmadge filed a lawsuit in Klickitat County Superior Court challenging the newly enacted income tax, arguing it is unconstitutional. "This was decided by the voters of Washington state when they enacted Amendment 14 to the Constitution in 1930," said McKenna in Thursday's press conference announcing the lawsuit. "The express purpose of that amendment was to expand the definition of property, to cover everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership. Every Supreme Court panel that's looked at the question has reached the same conclusion. Income is subject to ownership. So, unless you think you don't have an ownership interest in your income, you have to see that income, in fact, is part of property." Heywood and LGW have their own legal challenge to the income tax proceeding on a separate path, pushing for voters to have a chance to weigh in. "The attorney general has to respond by today to our writ of mandamus and then we have until next Tuesday to respond to their response," said Heywood. "And then it goes to the entire Supreme Court on April 30." - Advertisement - LGW's suit is directed at Secretary of State (SOS) Steve Hobbs who refused to process a referendum on the income tax, citing the "necessity clause" in the bill. In its rejection, Hobb's office cited a Constitutional reference that Heywood contends does not exist. "...except those laws deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, or safety, or for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions." Heywood notes the Constitution as actually written reads: "...except such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions." LGW says inserting the phrase "or for" changes the standard into two independent exemption grounds for a referendum. Assuming the new income tax is not repealed by voters or overturned by the courts, the revenue collected will be directed to the state's operating fund for schools and state services. Additional revenues will be used to eliminate sales taxes on hygiene products, diapers and some over-the-counter medicine. The measure also increases the business and occupation tax filing threshold to $300,000 in annual gross revenue, which is aimed at helping small businesses. The Department of Revenue did not immediately respond to requests for information. The agency is expected to begin hiring for the new positions after the start of the fiscal year, which begins July 1. Hot this week

Washington Attorney General sues Kalshi over alleged gambling practices. Last updated: March 29, 2026, 1:48 am Introduction The Washington State Attorney General has initiated legal action against Kalshi, a platform that allows users to trade on the outcomes of future events. The lawsuit, filed on Friday, alleges that Kalshi is offering "gambling products" disguised as prediction markets, raising significant questions about the regulatory landscape for such platforms. This legal move comes at a time when states are increasingly scrutinizing online betting and prediction markets. The case could set a precedent for how similar platforms operate in the United States, particularly in states with strict gambling laws.