People, businesses and local governments that bought gasoline, diesel, heating oil or other oil-based fuels in the U.S. since January 1, 2021 may be covered by a proposed class action alleging eight shale oil producers, including Hess, Pioneer, Occidental and EOG, agreed to hold back production to raise fuel prices. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a consolidated class action complaint and a ruling on motions to dismiss. The statements below are unproven allegations. None of the defendants has been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Fuel buyers suing eight of the largest U.S. shale oil producers allege the companies agreed, starting in 2021, to hold back domestic oil production so crude oil prices would stay high. Because gasoline, diesel, heating oil and jet fuel are refined from crude, the plaintiffs say the higher prices reached everyone who bought those fuels.The cases were first filed in early 2024 and are now combined in In re Shale Oil Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:24-md-03119, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. On August 31, 2026, U.S. District Judge Matthew L. Garcia denied most of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, so the case moves forward. The defendants deny any wrongdoing, and the ruling does not decide whether the allegations are true.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
Who Is Being Sued?
The consolidated complaint names eight producers:- Permian Resources Corporation, known as Centennial Resource Development during much of the period
- Expand Energy Corporation, formerly Chesapeake Energy
- Continental Resources
- Diamondback Energy
- EOG Resources
- Hess Corporation, which Chevron has since acquired
- Occidental Petroleum
- Pioneer Natural Resources, which Exxon Mobil has since acquired
The plaintiffs are individuals, businesses and local governments. The court’s orders identify Ford County, Kansas, the cities of San Diego and San Jose, San Mateo County and Baltimore among them.
What the Plaintiffs Allege
According to the complaint, shale drilling made U.S. producers fast-moving “swing producers” whose output could move world oil prices, and that after a price war failed to slow them, OPEC spent years trying to bring them into its fold. The plaintiffs point to private meetings between producer executives and OPEC officials, including dinners at the annual CERAWeek energy conference in Houston in 2018, 2019 and 2022 and meetings at a 2018 OPEC gathering in Vienna and the 2019 World Economic Forum.The complaint says that when fuel demand rebounded after the pandemic and crude passed $120 a barrel in mid-2022, the producers did not expand production as their low break-even costs would have allowed. Instead, it alleges, executives used phrases such as “discipline” and “value growth” as code for an agreement to keep output down. The plaintiffs say end buyers of fuel paid inflated prices as a result.
The complaint also relies on 2024 Federal Trade Commission orders that barred Sheffield from Exxon Mobil’s board and John B. Hess from Chevron’s board after the FTC alleged both had communicated with OPEC officials and rivals about oil output. The FTC later set those orders aside. The court noted that the FTC did so because its complaints never alleged the mergers themselves would make coordination more likely, not because it rejected its earlier allegations about the two executives.
What the Court Decided on August 31, 2026
In a 60-page opinion, Judge Garcia held that the complaint plausibly alleges a domestic conspiracy to restrain shale oil production. He rejected the argument that the case would force a U.S. court to judge OPEC, a group of foreign governments. He read the core claim as an agreement among the U.S. companies themselves, with OPEC’s role offered as background. He also found the plaintiffs, as end buyers of refined fuels, had antitrust standing to sue.The ruling did trim the case:
- Consumer-protection claims under Maryland, Oregon, Arkansas and Pennsylvania law were dismissed, along with an Alabama claim
- Colorado and New Jersey antitrust claims were limited to conduct after June 7, 2023 and August 5, 2022, respectively
- Some business purchasers lost claims under the Massachusetts, Missouri and Montana statutes
- The federal claim for court orders was dismissed against Expand Energy, because the complaint did not allege that Expand produces shale oil or is likely to resume the challenged conduct
Who Is in the Proposed Classes?
The complaint proposes two classes. The first is a nationwide class of every person, business and government entity that bought crude oil–derived fuel products in the United States from January 1, 2021 to the present. That class seeks court orders under the federal Sherman Act to stop the alleged conduct, not money.The second is a damages class of end purchasers in 35 states and the District of Columbia listed in the complaint, including California, Florida, Illinois, New York and North Carolina, under those states’ antitrust and consumer-protection laws. A judge must still decide whether either class can be certified; OCA’s guide to class certification explains that step.
What Happens Next?
The parties were ordered to propose by September 16, 2026 how to handle the jurisdiction questions for Hess, John B. Hess and Pioneer. In a September 9 order, Judge Garcia noted the parties reported no issues at an impasse and told counsel to be ready for an in-person status conference in October. Because the case is a multidistrict litigation, pretrial proceedings for every related suit run through this one court.There is nothing for fuel buyers to file now. Gasoline price cases have paid consumers before, in California’s $50 million gasoline price settlement and the California gasoline spot market settlement, but both involved different companies and conduct, and both have finished paying claimants.
Questions
Who is covered by the shale oil price-fixing lawsuit?
The consolidated complaint proposes a nationwide class of people, businesses and government entities that bought crude oil–derived fuel products, such as gasoline, diesel, heating oil and jet fuel, in the United States from January 1, 2021 to the present, for court-ordered changes to the producers’ conduct. A separate proposed damages class covers end purchasers in 35 states and the District of Columbia named in the complaint. No class has been certified.
Which oil companies are defendants in the shale oil lawsuit?
The defendants are Permian Resources (formerly Centennial Resource Development), Expand Energy (formerly Chesapeake Energy), Continental Resources, Diamondback Energy, EOG Resources, Hess Corporation, Occidental Petroleum and Pioneer Natural Resources, plus former Pioneer CEO Scott Sheffield and Hess CEO John B. Hess. Pioneer is now owned by Exxon Mobil and Hess by Chevron. The defendants deny wrongdoing.
Is OPEC a defendant in the gas price lawsuit?
No. OPEC and its member nations are not defendants. The complaint describes meetings between the U.S. producers and OPEC officials as context, but the court read the core claim as an agreement among the U.S. producers themselves to limit domestic production, which is why it rejected the argument that the case would require judging OPEC’s conduct.
What did the judge decide on August 31, 2026?
U.S. District Judge Matthew L. Garcia denied most of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding the complaint plausibly alleged a conspiracy to restrain domestic shale oil production. He dismissed several state-law claims in whole or in part, dismissed the federal injunctive claim against Expand Energy, and ordered limited discovery on whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Hess, John B. Hess and Pioneer. The ruling does not decide whether the allegations are true.
Is there any money to claim from the shale oil lawsuit?
No. There is no settlement, no certified class and no claim form. If the case settles or a class is certified, class members would be notified of any way to take part.
Sources
• Memorandum Opinion and Order on Motions to Dismiss, In re Shale Oil Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:24-md-03119 (D.N.M. Aug. 31, 2026), via GovInfo: Opinion (PDF)• Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Kansas’s Motion to Intervene (D.N.M. June 11, 2026), via GovInfo: Opinion (PDF)
• Order Vacating September 15, 2026 Status Conference (D.N.M. Sept. 9, 2026), via CourtListener: Order (PDF)
• Docket for In re Shale Oil Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:24-md-03119 (D.N.M.), via CourtListener: CourtListener Docket
