Walmart Inc.
Also known as: Spark Driver.
The FTC and 11 states alleged that Walmart showed Spark Driver gig workers inflated base pay and tip amounts, and told customers 100 percent of tips went to drivers when on multiple occasions they did not. Walmart agreed to a $100 million judgment.
Resolved. Refunded, settled, ceased operating, or the claim did not hold up. Kept for the record.
Identity
Published so you can confirm this entry refers to the party you are checking, and not to somebody who shares a name.
- Registrations
- FTC et al. v. Walmart Inc. (Walmart Spark Driver) (FTC case 232-3055, N.D. Cal., 2026)
- Jurisdictions
- United States (federal) · Arizona · California · Colorado · Illinois · Michigan · North Carolina · Oklahoma · Pennsylvania · South Carolina · Utah · Wisconsin
An offer a driver accepts on the strength of a number
Walmart’s Spark Driver service delivers goods using gig workers, who decide whether to accept an offer based on the base pay and tips Walmart says they can expect.
The FTC and eleven state attorneys general alleged Walmart showed drivers inflated base pay and tip amounts, causing them to lose tens of millions of dollars’ worth of earnings.
The four practices alleged
Tips that were never guaranteed. Unlike payment for the goods themselves, the advertised tip amount had not been preauthorized. If the customer could not cover it or the charge failed, the driver did not get it, and Walmart did not say so. Nor did it say that tips would be split when one delivery was shared across multiple drivers.
Batched offers changed after acceptance. When Walmart removed orders from a batch, it reduced base pay or tips. In many instances it either did not notify the driver at all, or told them only after the delivery was finished.
Incentive pay with undisclosed conditions. Walmart offered referral incentives without adequately disclosing that it would only pay if the recruited driver worked a particular zone or store, and sometimes failed to pay even when the conditions were met.
“100% of tips go to the driver.” Walmart told customers this. On multiple occasions it failed to pass the collected tip to the driver and did not refund it to the customer either.
The alleged conduct violated the FTC Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the latter because Walmart obtained drivers’ bank and financial information while deceiving them about what they would earn.
The order
A $100 million judgment. Walmart must implement an earnings verification program to ensure drivers are paid what was promised, is prohibited from modifying an offer after it is made except in limited circumstances such as customer cancellation, and is banned from misrepresenting the earnings in its delivery offers.
What is not established
A stipulated final order resolves the allegations without any admission or finding of wrongdoing.
Sources
Every claim above rests on one of these. Open them and check.
- Enforcement action February 26, 2026
- Enforcement action March 3, 2026
Right of reply
If you are named here and something is wrong, dispute this entry. There is no charge, the route never expires, and your response is published unedited.
Other coaching & business opportunity entries
See all coaching & business opportunity entries, or browse the full record.
First recorded February 26, 2026 · Last updated March 3, 2026