Frito-Lay lawsuits over the past several decades span price discrimination, wage and hour claims, employment discrimination, consumer protection, and workplace injury, with outcomes ranging from multi-million dollar settlements to outright dismissals. The largest recent payouts have come from wage litigation tied to a 2021 ransomware attack on the company’s timekeeping vendor. The most closely watched active case involves independent convenience stores accusing the snack maker of illegal price favoritism toward big-box chains.
Convenience Stores Sue Over Chain Store Pricing
The most prominent pending case is Alqosh Enterprises, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc., filed by independent convenience store owners in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs, Alqosh Enterprises Inc. and NMRM Inc., invoke the federal Robinson-Patman Act along with California’s Unfair Practices Act and Unfair Competition Law.1NOSH. PepsiCo, Frito-Lay Accused of Price Discrimination
Their complaint alleges Frito-Lay gave chains such as Albertsons, Safeway, Walmart, and Target substantially lower prices than independents. In one cited example, a bag of Ruffles pre-priced at $5.99 was sold to convenience stores for $4.41 while an Albertsons received the same item for $2.49, roughly a 43% discount. The suit also alleges chains received more favorable promotional payments under Customer Development Agreements and Customer Marketing Agreements, while independents were capped at a 1.15% rebate tied to shelf space, with additional rebates of 2% to 14% available only if quarterly sales climbed 102% to 108%.1NOSH. PepsiCo, Frito-Lay Accused of Price Discrimination The plaintiffs claim tens of millions of dollars in lost chip sales over four years.
On February 18, 2026, the court granted the defendants’ motion to strike all class allegations, holding that Robinson-Patman claims required individualized proof on questions like whether specific sales were in interstate commerce, contemporaneous, of like quality, and actually caused competitive injury. Plaintiffs were given 21 days to amend, though the court expressed doubt they could cure the defects. No appeal had been reported as of early 2026.2The Franchise Memorandum. California Federal Court Strikes Class Allegations on Claims for Alleged Price Discrimination Between Independent and Chain Stores
Kronos Ransomware Wage Lawsuits
A December 2021 ransomware attack on Ultimate Kronos Group knocked Frito-Lay’s timekeeping and payroll systems offline from about December 11, 2021, through February 12, 2022. Workers sued, alleging that during and after the outage the company paid them based on averages from prior pay periods rather than actual hours, underpaying regular wages and overtime owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law.3ClassAction.org. Parrish v. Frito-Lay North America Inc.
The lead case, Thomas Parrish v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., was filed in April 2022 in the Eastern District of Texas.3ClassAction.org. Parrish v. Frito-Lay North America Inc. Related claims were consolidated in the Southern District of New York as Stevens et al. v. PepsiCo, Inc. (Case No. 7:22-cv-00802). The defendants agreed to pay an additional $12.75 million on top of roughly $23.9 million already distributed to affected employees.4Angeion Group. Stevens v. PepsiCo Settlement Notice The settlement class covered current and former employees nationwide affected during seventeen weekly pay periods between December 5, 2021, and April 8, 2022, with subclasses for California and New York workers.5Angeion Group. Stevens v. PepsiCo Settlement Agreement
A separate Kronos-related case, Hill et al. v. Frito-Lay, Inc., was resolved through an undisclosed settlement, with a joint stipulation of dismissal filed in June 2024.6HR Dive. Frito-Lay Settles Kronos Overtime Lawsuit
SunChips “100% Whole Grain” Consumer Case
In June 2025, a proposed class action, Baum v. Frito-Lay, Inc. (Case No. 5:25-cv-01408), was filed claiming SunChips are misleadingly labeled “100% Whole Grain” despite containing maltodextrin, described in the complaint as a highly processed ingredient derived from corn starch that is not a whole grain. The suit covers eight SunChips varieties, from Original to Monterey Jack and Sundried Tomato, and brings claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.7ClassAction.org. Frito-Lay Lawsuit Claims 100% Whole Grain SunChips Contain Highly Processed Refined Grain Maltodextrin The case remained in its early stages as of mid-2025.
EEOC Religious Discrimination Settlement
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Frito-Lay in September 2020 in the Southern District of Florida, alleging Title VII violations after the company fired a newly promoted route sales representative near West Palm Beach who could not attend Saturday training because of his Seventh-day Adventist faith. He had completed five weeks of training without a Saturday requirement before being scheduled for two consecutive Saturdays and then terminated.8EEOC. Frito-Lay Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
Frito-Lay paid $50,000 and entered a three-year consent decree requiring PepsiCo regional staff — not local managers — to review accommodation requests, training for HR staff and managers on the accommodation process, and reporting of all religious accommodation requests and outcomes to the EEOC.8EEOC. Frito-Lay Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
Race Discrimination Consent Decree in Louisiana
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs investigated Frito-Lay’s plant in Harahan, Louisiana, beginning in 1995 and sued in 1997. Investigators found the plant hired disproportionately more white than Black applicants for route salesperson and store representative jobs and assigned Black employees disproportionately to higher-crime areas of New Orleans.9U.S. Department of Labor. Frito-Lay Consent Decree
A consent decree approved in April 1999 required Frito-Lay to pay $225,000 in back wages to 233 minority applicants denied entry-level positions, offer jobs to affected class members until 25 were hired with benefits retroactive to January 1995, train managers on equal employment obligations, and submit progress reports to the DOL for two years.9U.S. Department of Labor. Frito-Lay Consent Decree
Background Check Class Settlement
In January 2017, a former employee filed a proposed class action, Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc., Frito-Lay, Inc., First Advantage Background Services Corp. (N.D. Cal., Case No. 3:17-cv-00152), alleging Frito-Lay violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by burying its background-check disclosure inside a broader document that also served as a liability release, rather than presenting it on a standalone form.10HR Dive. Frito-Lay Pays $2.4M to Settle Applicants’ Background Check Claims
In April 2018, the parties sought preliminary approval of a $2.4 million settlement covering 38,174 job applicants, with each class member set to receive a gross payment of about $62.87 and a net payment of at least $40.10HR Dive. Frito-Lay Pays $2.4M to Settle Applicants’ Background Check Claims
Variable Rate Overtime Case Dismissed
Not every wage suit has gone against the company. In Kornbau et al. v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc. (N.D. Ohio, Case No. 4:11-cv-02630), thirty-seven Route Sales Representatives challenged Frito-Lay’s “Variable Rate Overtime” system, under which the company calculated overtime for employees earning both a base salary and commissions by dividing total weekly earnings by total hours worked and paying half that rate for each hour over forty. The plaintiffs argued their salary portion should get the standard time-and-a-half treatment.11GovInfo. Kornbau v. Frito Lay North America Inc.
In August 2012, Judge Benita Y. Pearson granted Frito-Lay’s motion to dismiss, holding the system complied with federal regulations for commission-earning employees and with the Fair Labor Standards Act because the reps received both salary and commissions rather than salary alone.11GovInfo. Kornbau v. Frito Lay North America Inc.
Warehouse Electrocution and Surveillance Claims
In October 2016, Brandon Ingram, an employee at a Frito-Lay warehouse in St. Louis, was shocked while operating a dock door. He was later diagnosed with two herniated discs and liver disease, and his physician warned that without surgery he risked paralysis or death from even minor accidents.12KSDK. Frito-Lay Employee Electrocuted at Work
Ingram and his wife Melissa sued months later, alleging the company denied him time off for medical treatment, forced him to use company-approved physicians who provided inadequate care, and terminated his insurance while he pursued long-term disability benefits.13Perfect Union. A Frito-Lay Worker Was Electrocuted, Denied Medical Care The Ingrams also alleged the company hired private investigators to conduct surveillance on their family, including tracking Melissa and recording their children, to discredit the claim. Frito-Lay said medical experts disagreed on whether Ingram’s back and neck injuries were work-related and that it had provided medical treatment and short-term disability benefits for five months after the incident. As of July 2021, the company said Ingram was still receiving long-term disability benefits.12KSDK. Frito-Lay Employee Electrocuted at Work
WARN Act Investigation Over California Layoffs
In June 2025, Frito-Lay notified the California Employment Development Department of a mass layoff at its Rancho Cucamonga facility affecting 432 employees. A law firm began investigating whether the company gave the 60 days of advance written notice required by the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. If the company is found to have violated the law, affected workers could be entitled to 60 days of back pay and benefits. No formal lawsuit had been publicly reported in connection with the investigation as of mid-2026.14ClassAction.org. Frito-Lay Inc. Lawsuits
Earlier DOJ Antitrust Action
Frito-Lay’s legal history extends back decades. In May 1970, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil antitrust action, United States v. Frito-Lay, Inc.; BBF Liquidating, Inc.; Granny Goose Foods, Inc., and Pet Inc., alleging bid rigging, horizontal and vertical price fixing, and False Claims Act violations in the food preparations industry.15U.S. Department of Justice. US v. Frito-Lay Inc. et al. Detailed terms of the resolution are not publicly available from the DOJ’s case page.