Domino’s Pizza “Tax 2” Class Action Lawsuit 2026, What California Consumers Need to Know

The Domino’s junk fees class action is a consumer protection lawsuit where eligible California customers who paid a hidden mandatory fee labeled “Tax 2” at Domino’s restaurant locations may be part of a class seeking refunds and damages. Plaintiff John Murphy filed the lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC, Domino’s Pizza LLC, Ari Foods Inc., and Aai Foods Inc. on February 26, 2026. The case is currently in active litigation — no settlement has been reached.

Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Case Name	Murphy v. Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC, et al.
Case Number	No. 3:26-cv-01712
Court	U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Filed	February 26, 2026
Current Court Stage	Active litigation — no settlement reached
Who Qualifies	California consumers who paid a “Tax 2” fee at a Domino’s location
Claim Deadline	TBD — no claim process open; case is in litigation phase
Settlement Amount	TBD — no settlement has been proposed or approved
Lead Law Firm	Almeida Law Group (Wesley M. Griffith, David McGee, Loc G. Ho)
Defendants	Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC; Domino’s Pizza LLC; Ari Foods Inc.; Aai Foods Inc.
Last Updated	April 22, 2026

Current Status & What Happens Next

• Litigation phase: The case was filed February 26, 2026. No class has been certified and no settlement has been proposed. The court has not yet issued a scheduling order (TBD — docket pending).
• No claim form exists yet: Consumers cannot file a claim at this stage. If a settlement is reached, a claims process will open and AllAboutLawyer.com will update this page.
• Watch for class certification: The next major milestone is Domino’s response to the complaint, followed by a motion for class certification. Expected timeline: TBD — dependent on court scheduling.

What Is the Domino’s Lawsuit About? Murphy v. Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC, et al., No. 3:26-cv-01712

Plaintiff John Murphy alleges that Domino’s adds a mandatory fee to in-person pizza orders at California locations and disguises that fee as a tax — specifically labeled “Tax 2” on customer receipts. Murphy argues that this fee is not a government-imposed tax. Instead, he contends Domino’s uses it to pass its own operating costs to customers without disclosing it in the advertised price.

The lawsuit alleges violations of California’s Honest Pricing Act (California Civil Code § 1770, as amended by SB 478), which prohibits businesses from advertising a price that does not include all mandatory charges. The case also alleges violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL) — all statutes designed to protect consumers from deceptive pricing practices.

Murphy filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, one of the most active jurisdictions in the country for consumer protection class actions. Consumers who want to understand how these types of hidden charges have led to similar litigation can also review our guide to consumer class action lawsuits and our coverage of the Depop hidden fees class action lawsuit.

Who Is Eligible for the Domino’s Lawsuit?

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California consumers. Based on the complaint, you may be part of the class if:

• You purchased pizza or food in person at a Domino’s restaurant location in California
• You were charged a fee labeled “Tax 2” that appeared on your receipt at checkout
• The fee was not disclosed in the advertised price shown to you before purchase
• Your purchase occurred during a timeframe to be defined by the court (TBD — class period not yet certified by the court)

Geographic restriction: This lawsuit covers California locations only as currently filed. Consumers in other states are not part of this class at this time.

Related article: Olly Metabolism Gummy Rings Class Action Lawsuit 2026 On Flase Advertising

Potential Recovery & Legal Theory

Murphy’s complaint demands declaratory and injunctive relief, meaning he wants the court to order Domino’s to stop the practice and declare it unlawful. He also seeks statutory, monetary, and punitive damages for himself and all class members.

Under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, statutory damages can reach up to $1,000 per consumer for knowing violations. Punitive damages are also available if the court finds Domino’s conduct was intentional or malicious. The exact payout per class member is TBD — dependent on class size, court rulings, and any future settlement negotiations.

Almeida Law Group’s California Managing Partner Wesley M. Griffith stated the firm’s position: Domino’s gave customers the false impression the charge was a tax, when it actually served as a mechanism to transfer the company’s operating costs to consumers — a practice the firm argues violates California’s consumer protection statutes. For context on how California’s junk fee laws work in related industries.

How to Join the Lawsuit

Because this case is in active litigation, you do not need to take any action right now to be part of the class. If the court certifies a class, all qualifying California consumers will be automatically included unless they choose to opt out.

Here is what you should do now:

1. Keep your receipts — Save any Domino’s receipts showing a “Tax 2” or similar fee line item. These could serve as proof of your claim if a settlement is reached.
2. Document your purchases — Note the date, location, and amount of the fee on each visit.
3. Monitor this page — AllAboutLawyer.com will update this article when class certification is sought, a settlement is proposed, or a claim form is released.
4. Contact the Almeida Law Group — If you want to speak with the attorneys handling the case, contact the firm at almeidalawgroup.com or call (708) 529-5418.
5. Do not contact Domino’s directly — You are not required to notify the company. Your rights are protected by the lawsuit as filed.

Case Timeline

Event	Date
Complaint Filed	February 26, 2026
Case Assigned to Court	February 26, 2026, USDC N.D. Cal.
Defendant’s Response Deadline	TBD — pending court scheduling order
Motion for Class Certification	TBD — pending defendant’s response and discovery
Next Scheduled Hearing	TBD — no hearing date yet on public docket
Potential Settlement / Trial Date	TBD — early litigation stage

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need a lawyer to join this class action?

 No. If the court certifies a class in Murphy v. Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC, No. 3:26-cv-01712, California consumers who qualify will be automatically included. You do not need to retain an attorney to benefit from any future settlement or judgment. The Almeida Law Group represents the class.

Is this lawsuit legitimate?

 Yes. The Almeida Law Group filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on February 26, 2026. The case number is 3:26-cv-01712 and is verifiable through the court’s public docket. It is a formally filed federal class action, not a solicitation.

When will this case be resolved? 

Class action lawsuits in the Northern District of California typically take two to four years from filing to final resolution, though settlements can occur earlier. No settlement has been proposed in this case as of April 22, 2026. TBD — timeline depends on court scheduling and whether Domino’s contests class certification.

What if I already threw away my Domino’s receipt? 

Your credit card or bank statements showing the total amount charged at a Domino’s location may still support your claim. Courts routinely allow multiple forms of documentation. Retain whatever records you have.

Will any recovery affect my taxes?

 Potentially. Compensatory damages that reimburse actual money paid are generally not taxable. However, punitive damages and interest are typically treated as taxable income. Consult a tax professional once any payment is confirmed — this question is TBD pending the outcome of this litigation.

What is California’s Honest Pricing Act and why does it matter here? 

California’s Honest Pricing Act (SB 478, effective July 1, 2024) requires businesses to include all mandatory charges in the advertised price. Murphy’s complaint argues that labeling an operating-cost fee as “Tax 2” — when it is not a government tax — violates this law directly. It is one of the strongest consumer pricing statutes in the country.

Does this lawsuit cover Domino’s online orders? 

Based on the complaint as filed, the case targets in-person purchases at California Domino’s restaurants. Online orders are not explicitly included in the current class definition. TBD — the scope of the class will be clarified when the court rules on class certification.

What is Domino’s position on these claims?

 Domino’s has not yet filed a formal response to the complaint. TBD — Domino’s answer or motion to dismiss is pending and will reflect the company’s official legal position.

Sources & References

1. Almeida Law Group — Official Case Announcement: https://www.almeidalawgroup.com/updates/class-action-filed-challenging-dominos-junk-fee-practices-in-california
2. PACER / USDC Northern District of California Docket: Murphy v. Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC, et al., No. 3:26-cv-01712 (available at pacer.gov)
3. California SB 478 — Honest Pricing Act: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against the official court filing and the Almeida Law Group’s published case update on April 22, 2026. Last Updated: April 22, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.