AmeriGas, the country’s largest retail propane marketer, has been sued repeatedly over the past two decades, with the most consequential AmeriGas lawsuit being a federal antitrust matter alleging the company and its main competitor secretly coordinated to reduce the amount of propane in exchange tanks while holding prices steady. That case produced an FTC consent order and a $12.6 million class action settlement, and it sits alongside separate state attorney general actions over pricing and delivery, federal safety fines, and employment claims.
The Propane Tank Fill-Level Antitrust Case
In 2008, AmeriGas and Blue Rhino (owned by Ferrellgas) reduced the propane in their exchange tanks from 17 pounds to 15 pounds while keeping the price the same. Together the two companies controlled roughly 80 percent of the U.S. wholesale propane exchange market, so the change worked out to a 13 percent per-pound price increase for millions of consumers.1FTC. AmeriGas / Blue Rhino Matter
The fill reduction itself was not what regulators challenged. According to the FTC’s 2014 administrative complaint, the problem started when Walmart, the two companies’ largest customer, pushed back. The FTC alleged AmeriGas and Blue Rhino then secretly coordinated their negotiations with Walmart and presented a united front so the retailer had no real choice but to accept the smaller tanks.2FTC. AmeriGas Complaint, Docket No. 9360 The private antitrust complaint described numerous calls and emails between executives in spring and summer 2008, including seven phone calls between Blue Rhino’s president and AmeriGas’s director of national accounts over two days in June.3Applied Antitrust. In Re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litigation, Amended Complaint By October 2008, Walmart had accepted the 15-pound standard from both suppliers.
The FTC Settlement
AmeriGas and Blue Rhino agreed to settle the FTC charges on October 31, 2014, and the final consent order was approved on January 9, 2015. It barred both companies from agreeing with competitors on prices or fill levels, coordinating communications with customers about pricing, or sharing sensitive non-public information with competitors outside narrow exceptions.1FTC. AmeriGas / Blue Rhino Matter Both companies had to set up antitrust compliance programs and appoint compliance officers.4FTC. Blue Rhino / AmeriGas Decision and Order The order carried no upfront penalty, but each future violation could bring a civil penalty of up to $16,000.5Applied Antitrust. FTC Consent Agreement Announcement
Consumer Class Action Settlements
Two rounds of consumer class action litigation followed, both in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri before Judge Gary A. Fenner.
The first, In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (MDL No. 2086), alleged that AmeriGas and competitors failed to fill tanks to the proper level and did not disclose the actual weight. AmeriGas denied the allegations and settled for up to $10 million, covering purchases and exchanges between June 15, 2005, and November 30, 2009. The court granted final approval on October 4, 2010. Blue Rhino separately agreed to pay up to $25 million.6FTC. AmeriGas Blue Rhino Public Statement7PR Newswire. Proposed Class Action Settlement of Up to $10 Million
The second, In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litigation (Case No. 4:14-md-02567), pursued the fill reduction as a Sherman Act violation. It covered consumers and businesses who bought filled exchange tanks directly from the defendants’ retail locations between July 2008 and January 2015. Judge Fenner granted final approval of a $12.6 million settlement on June 18, 2020.8Cohen Milstein. In Re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litigation
State Attorney General Actions Over Pricing and Service
Several states have brought their own consumer protection cases, mostly targeting pricing during cold winters and cancellation-related service problems.
Michigan
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette sued AmeriGas in Berrien County Circuit Court in September 2014, alleging violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act during the 2013-2014 winter. The state said AmeriGas charged residential customers prices that “grossly exceeded” competitors, refused to honor locked-in rates, and billed customers more than quoted amounts.9Michigan Public. One Propane Company Reaches Agreement, Another Sued by Michigan Attorney General
The case settled in November 2014, returning more than $500,000 to over 5,600 customers. Roughly $479,008 went to more than 5,000 customers charged excessive prices, and the remainder covered locked-price and will-call billing errors. AmeriGas agreed to waive the $99 enrollment fee for its locked-rate program the next winter and to change its will-call billing.10Pioneer Tribune. Over 5,600 to Receive Funds From Propane Settlement
Complaints continued, and the AG filed a second lawsuit in 2018. That complaint alleged that in the 2015-2016 winter AmeriGas charged customers above $3.00 per gallon when weekly market averages ran from $1.63 to $1.71, refused refunds to customers who terminated service and returned propane, misled consumers about “HazMat and Fuel Recovery” fees, and let 20 to 30 customers of its Schultz Bottle Gas subsidiary run out of propane despite auto-fill agreements. It also alleged that AmeriGas had violated the 2014 settlement.11Moody on the Market. Michigan AG Sues AmeriGas for Price Gouging and More
Vermont
Vermont reached a $545,000 consumer protection settlement with AmeriGas in November 2013 covering 169 consumers who experienced delays in tank removal or refund checks after canceling service between January 2010 and June 2013, along with allegations of undisclosed meter reading fees. Of the total, $255,000 went to affected consumers, $190,000 to the state’s Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and $100,000 to civil penalties.12Manufacturing.net. VT Settles Consumer Protection Case With Gas Firm
California
Also in 2013, a coalition of seven California district attorneys secured an $800,000 settlement in Alameda County Superior Court. The complaint alleged AmeriGas misled consumers into believing exchange cylinders were filled to capacity. The settlement permanently enjoined misleading statements about propane volume and required disclosure notices on all exchange cages and vending machines showing the relationship between the propane amount and the canister’s capacity. Roughly $773,000 of the total went to civil penalties split among the participating DA offices.13CDFA. QC-13-13 Notice
Ongoing State Investigations Over Delivery Failures
More recent state activity has focused on delivery delays during winter weather rather than pricing.
In North Carolina, Attorney General Josh Stein’s office received 109 complaints about AmeriGas between November 2020 and February 2021, on top of 28 filed earlier that year. The Better Business Bureau separately logged more than 900 complaints nationwide over the prior three years. Residents, restaurants, retail stores, churches, and volunteer fire departments were affected.14CBS 17. 109 Complaints Filed Against AmeriGas Since Nov, NC Attorney General Says AmeriGas attributed the disruptions to “growing pains” during a computer system transition and to the pandemic. Stein called the complaint volume “the tip of the iceberg.”15WBTV. AmeriGas Drops Expedited Delivery Fee After WBTV Investigation No formal enforcement action has been reported.
In Massachusetts, similar issues surfaced during the 2025-2026 winter. The attorney general’s office received more than 67 complaints about AmeriGas and Superior Plus Propane from consumers left without heat or hot water during storms. On February 24, 2026, Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell sent a demand letter ordering AmeriGas to “immediately examine and remedy” its operational problems in the state and to document its efforts in writing by March 3, 2026.16Mass.gov. AG Campbell Demands Gas Companies Immediately Remedy Delivery Issues The office has logged 184 consumer complaints against AmeriGas since January 1, 2020.17MV Times. Island Residents File Complaints Against AmeriGas AmeriGas blamed extreme weather and said it was reviewing the AG’s request.18MV Times. State Attorney General Calls AmeriGas The matter has not become formal litigation as of mid-2026.
Federal Safety Penalties
AmeriGas has also drawn substantial regulatory fines. After a November 2022 inspection of AmeriGas’s liquefied petroleum gas distribution systems in Hawaii, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration identified 13 violations and issued a final order on March 27, 2024, assessing $543,400 in civil penalties. The violations included exceeding maximum allowable operating pressure on some lines (the largest single item at $162,300), failing to conduct required leakage surveys, not correcting deficiencies in regulating equipment, and lapses in corrosion control and personnel qualifications.19PHMSA. Final Order, CPF No. 5-2023-029-NOPV
Earlier PHMSA fines included $105,600 in 2009 and $70,100 in 2013. OSHA has cited AmeriGas in at least 28 separate actions between 2000 and 2025, and state public utility commissions in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Nevada have issued utility safety penalties.20Good Jobs First. Violation Tracker – UGI Corp
Employment and Individual Lawsuits
In Jarrell v. AmeriGas Propane, Inc. (N.D. Cal., Case No. 3:16-cv-01481), a service technician brought a wage-and-hour class action covering meal and rest periods, unpaid on-call and travel time, vacation pay, and inaccurate wage statements. The class covered 283 California service technicians employed from February 2012 through August 2017. Judge Jon S. Tigar granted final approval of an $800,000 settlement in April 2018, with about $490,000 distributed to class members after fees and costs.21Justia. Jarrell v. AmeriGas Propane, Inc.
In Henson v. AmeriGas Propane, Inc. (10th Cir., No. 16-7057), a former Oklahoma delivery driver sued for disability discrimination under the ADA and wrongful discharge for filing a workers’ compensation claim. The district court granted summary judgment to AmeriGas, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed on March 10, 2017.22FindLaw. Henson v. AmeriGas Propane, Inc.
Individual claims have also reached AmeriGas. A Jackson, Wyoming, resident, Sandy Ress, sued in the Ninth District Court alleging AmeriGas removed his 120-gallon propane tank in November 2021 without permission while he was traveling. He brought claims for breach of contract, trespass, and theft. AmeriGas moved to dismiss most claims but was unsuccessful, and the case moved toward trial.23Jackson Hole News & Guide. AmeriGas Propane Removal Poised for Spring Trial A company spokesperson said AmeriGas does not remove tanks without a customer request, and the company’s filings pointed to releases and waivers it said Ress had signed.24Jackson Hole News & Guide. AmeriGas Sued for Tank Removal Amidst Propane Shortages