BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 33% saturation with 110 hits. Analysis detected 937 faulty-reasoning hits from 333 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.8% and a BS Rank of 67% (7,227 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.00% of the article peer group.

A group of California drivers filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that several large gas stations used artificial intelligence-driven pricing technology to manipulate gas prices, in the state that already has the highest gas prices in the U.S. 
The filing in the Sacramento federal court alleges that gas station operators, including BP, Circle K, Marathon, 7-Eleven, Walmart and Albertsons  violated California’s Cartwright Act, the state’s primary antitrust law. 
According to AAA, Californians pay the highest gas prices in the nation, with regular gasoline averaging $5.58 per gallon, compared with the national average of $3.93 per gallon. 
“While families struggle to afford the commute to work, defendants have conspired to ​put an end ​to competition, joining ⁠an AI-powered trust to ensure that no matter where a driver turns, the price for gasoline is artificially ​high,” the complaint said. 
According to Reuters, the lawsuit also cites the violation of California Assembly Bill 325  which cracks down on algorithmic price fixing. 
By participating in the system that reduced competition among fuel retailers, plaintiffs argue that the AI-pricing technology allowed for stations to align pricing decisions instead of competing independently, skyrocketing prices for consumers. 
Drivers claim that the AI tool, coming from a company called “Kalibrate,” has driven up gas prices to as much as 30 cents a gallon more in areas where the company is widely used. 
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of drivers who purportedly overpaid for gasoline and names both Kalibrate and the participating gas stations as defendants. 
The case comes amid increasing scrutiny of algorithmic pricing systems across a range of industries. 
The issue has drawn growing attention in recent years through litigation involving revenue-management software in the housing market and other sectors, where plaintiffs and regulators have argued that shared pricing algorithms can weaken competition by reducing the pressure on companies to compete independently. 
Stay informed! 
Receive breaking news alerts directly to your inbox for free. 
Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.2%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 5.0%One America News Network: 4.6%Confirmation Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.1%One America News Network: 2.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.3%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.7%One America News Network: 3.9%Availability Heuristic21.3%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.8%One America News Network: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.4%One America News Network: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.7%One America News Network: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.3%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 12.0%One America News Network: 15.3%Framing Effect15.3%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.3%One America News Network: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.7%One America News Network: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.9%One America News Network: 4.3%Optimism Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.1%One America News Network: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 33.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 10.7%One America News Network: 11.8%Negativity Bias33.0%This article: 9.6%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.2%One America News Network: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.1%One America News Network: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.5%One America News Network: 3.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.5%One America News Network: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.4%One America News Network: 5.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.3%One America News Network: 2.0%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.6%One America News Network: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.7%One America News Network: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.7%One America News Network: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 27.9%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 5.9%One America News Network: 6.3%Appeal to Authority27.9%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.6%One America News Network: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.8%One America News Network: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.1%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 4.4%One America News Network: 5.4%Hasty Generalization11.1%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.6%One America News Network: 1.1%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 12.9%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 9.5%One America News Network: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion12.9%This article: 19.8%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.3%One America News Network: 1.7%Begging the Question19.8%This article: 19.8%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 3.4%One America News Network: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.8%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.4%One America News Network: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.0%One America News Network: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 12.9%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.3%Composition/Division12.9%This article: 12.3%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.7%One America News Network: 1.6%Anecdotal12.3%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 1.8%One America News Network: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.3%One America News Network: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.3%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.2%One America News Network: 1.7%Unattributed Quote12.3%This article: 12.3%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 3.1%One America News Network: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection12.3%This article: 20.7%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 5.6%One America News Network: 5.2%Biased Writer Voice20.7%This article: 13.2%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.4%One America News Network: 1.1%Indoctrination13.2%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 0.4%One America News Network: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 3.8%One America News Network: 3.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%OAN Staff Lillian Mann: 2.7%One America News Network: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.5%

333 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers15%attributed speech283writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageAAA • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageReuters • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

AAA

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words56% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-24.4 ptsWriter: 24.4%AAA: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-15.5 ptsWriter: 15.5%AAA: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-14.5 ptsWriter: 14.5%AAA: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-14.5 ptsWriter: 14.5%AAA: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.3 ptsWriter: 5.3%AAA: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.