For over 85 years, guided by our mission of Serving Others, Dollar General has worked to improve the lives of millions of Americans by helping them save time and money on everyday essentials. We take seriously our responsibility to deliver on that commitment through affordable prices, convenient locations and easy-to-shop stores - many of which are in areas that other retailers have chosen not to serve. With locations within five miles of approximately 75% of the U.S. population, Dollar General is part of the fabric of thousands of American communities.
The lawsuit filed today by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC" or "Commission") and several States suggests that we have abandoned our mission and willfully disregarded the affordability needs of our customers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Our goal is 100% accuracy between shelf and register prices in every store. As with other retailers and despite our policies and procedures, occasional price discrepancies can occur. When that happens, our store teams are instructed, empowered, and expected to make things right for the customer. In recent years, we have enhanced our price-accuracy processes and remain committed to continuous improvement.
Dollar General was made aware of the FTC's investigation in early February 2026, through the receipt of a civil investigative demand dated January 30, 2026. Despite an unusually accelerated timeline and request for voluminous information, we have engaged cooperatively with the Commission, producing more than 200,000 documents and over 350 gigabytes of data and making several Company representatives available to provide sworn testimony on relatively short notice.
On September 23, 2026, a mere three days following the conclusion of sworn testimony, Dollar General received from the FTC staff a draft complaint alleging violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the "GLB Act") and the laws of unidentified States, as well as a draft order of settlement. The FTC staff also demanded a monetary amount that was untethered to - and orders of magnitude larger than - any realistic assessment of amounts attributable to pricing discrepancies.
Prior to that communication, no settlement demand or investigative findings had been communicated to Dollar General, and no settlement discussions had taken place.
Over the four weeks that followed, the Company worked tirelessly and in good faith to resolve this matter without litigation, even in the absence of information regarding which States planned to participate. We met each of the FTC's brief and unexplained deadlines and agreed to many of the FTC's numerous, non-monetary undertakings. We also explained in detail our position regarding the many methodological flaws in the FTC's consumer-redress calculation, and offered an alternative, and in our view, more reasonable, manner of calculating potential settlement ranges. Finally, we communicated our belief that the FTC's theory of monetary recovery is premised on an incorrect interpretation of the GLB Act that will not survive a challenge in court.
We were surprised when, rather than responding to our monetary counteroffer and allowing the negotiating process to continue, the FTC filed this lawsuit and for the first time made the Company aware that 20 States had chosen to join.
Although we respect the FTC's role in protecting American consumers and the State representatives' role in protecting the citizens of their respective states, we will defend this litigation vigorously.
We remain ready and willing to engage in reasonable, meaningful discussions to resolve this matter while keeping our focus on what has always been at the heart of Dollar General - serving our customers and the communities we call home. That commitment has not changed and will not change as we navigate this matter.
The lawsuit filed today by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC" or "Commission") and several States suggests that we have abandoned our mission and willfully disregarded the affordability needs of our customers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Our goal is 100% accuracy between shelf and register prices in every store. As with other retailers and despite our policies and procedures, occasional price discrepancies can occur. When that happens, our store teams are instructed, empowered, and expected to make things right for the customer. In recent years, we have enhanced our price-accuracy processes and remain committed to continuous improvement.
Dollar General was made aware of the FTC's investigation in early February 2026, through the receipt of a civil investigative demand dated January 30, 2026. Despite an unusually accelerated timeline and request for voluminous information, we have engaged cooperatively with the Commission, producing more than 200,000 documents and over 350 gigabytes of data and making several Company representatives available to provide sworn testimony on relatively short notice.
On September 23, 2026, a mere three days following the conclusion of sworn testimony, Dollar General received from the FTC staff a draft complaint alleging violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the "GLB Act") and the laws of unidentified States, as well as a draft order of settlement. The FTC staff also demanded a monetary amount that was untethered to - and orders of magnitude larger than - any realistic assessment of amounts attributable to pricing discrepancies.
Prior to that communication, no settlement demand or investigative findings had been communicated to Dollar General, and no settlement discussions had taken place.
Over the four weeks that followed, the Company worked tirelessly and in good faith to resolve this matter without litigation, even in the absence of information regarding which States planned to participate. We met each of the FTC's brief and unexplained deadlines and agreed to many of the FTC's numerous, non-monetary undertakings. We also explained in detail our position regarding the many methodological flaws in the FTC's consumer-redress calculation, and offered an alternative, and in our view, more reasonable, manner of calculating potential settlement ranges. Finally, we communicated our belief that the FTC's theory of monetary recovery is premised on an incorrect interpretation of the GLB Act that will not survive a challenge in court.
We were surprised when, rather than responding to our monetary counteroffer and allowing the negotiating process to continue, the FTC filed this lawsuit and for the first time made the Company aware that 20 States had chosen to join.
Although we respect the FTC's role in protecting American consumers and the State representatives' role in protecting the citizens of their respective states, we will defend this litigation vigorously.
We remain ready and willing to engage in reasonable, meaningful discussions to resolve this matter while keeping our focus on what has always been at the heart of Dollar General - serving our customers and the communities we call home. That commitment has not changed and will not change as we navigate this matter.