United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-1751 YORAM KAHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. WALMART INC., Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:22-cv-04177 — Sara L. Ellis, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED JANUARY 10, 2024 — DECIDED JULY 3, 2024 ____________________

Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and LEE, Circuit Judges. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. This appeal turns on what con- stitutes reasonable consumer behavior for purposes of state consumer protection law. Plaintiff Yoram Kahn alleges that the nation’s largest retailer—defendant Walmart Inc.—takes advantage of consumers in Illinois and nationwide with de- ceptive and unfair pricing practices. At the heart of the case, 2 No. 23-1751 Kahn alleges, are numerous small discrepancies between the prices advertised on Walmart’s shelves and the prices actually charged at the cash register. The individual discrepancies are small but according to plaintiff add up to hundreds of mil- lions of dollars each year. Kahn alleges that Walmart is aware of these discrepancies between shelf prices and register prices and that its unfair and deceptive pricing practices are perva- sive and continuous. More specifically, Kahn alleges that the discrepancies be- tween shelf prices and register prices violate the Illinois Con- sumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”), 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq., and other states’ consumer protection statutes. Kahn also brings a claim for unjust enrichment. Kahn seeks to sue on behalf of a class of similarly situated consumers. The district court dismissed the case on the pleadings and denied leave to amend the complaint. We reverse because the complaint states some viable claims. We reject the theory that providing a customer with a receipt after payment stating the actual price charged is sufficient, at least as a matter of law, to dispel any potential deception or unfairness caused by an in- accurate shelf price. We reverse the dismissal of Kahn’s ICFA and UDTPA claims for failure to allege a deceptive or unfair practice or the required intent. We agree with defendant that plaintiff has not alleged a plausible likelihood of future injury needed for injunctive relief under the UDTPA, though we modify dismissal of that claim to give plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint if he believes he can cure that prob- lem. We reverse the judgment dismissing plaintiff’s other No. 23-1751 3 individual and class claims. We remand the case for further proceedings. I. Factual Background & Procedural History A. Factual Background Defendant Walmart moved to dismiss this case on the pleadings, so we focus on the facts alleged in plaintiff’s com- plaint. Walmart’s tactical choice requires us to treat Kahn’s factual allegations as true. E.g., Goldberg v. United States, 881 F.3d 529, 531 (7th Cir. 2018). Walmart uses shelf pricing to advertise merchandise prices, to let consumers compare prices, and to induce them to buy the advertised merchandise. Walmart’s shelf pricing does not always reflect the price it charges consumers at the point of sale, causing consumers to pay higher prices at check- out. State agencies have imposed fines on Walmart for this practice. For example, in 2012, California assessed a $2 million fine against Walmart for violating a 2008 ruling requiring it to resolve pri