F500 Consumer Goods & Food · Specialty Retailers: Other · Structural / no discrete incident
Dollar Tree
Headline
The 'broken banner' case in D'Antonio is the finding, and it names the failure precisely: a cookie consent banner that presented choices which did not actually govern what the site did, so a user who declined tracking…
Not independently verified. Verification status: Unverified - heuristic first draft. Publish state: draft unverified.
The 'broken banner' case in D'Antonio is the finding, and it names the failure precisely: a cookie consent banner that presented choices which did not actually govern what the site did, so a user who declined tracking was tracked anyway. That inverts the entire consent model - the interface exists, the button works, and nothing changes. Dollar Tree also owned Family Dollar during the relevant period, and the same low-income, limited-alternative customer base noted for Dollar General applies. Allegations, not findings.
- Severity
- Evidence tierUnassigned
- Claims confirmed
- Last verified2026-08-04
Primary source. None recorded — Unverified - heuristic first draft.
Terms
Arbitration
SEPARATE HISTORICAL BREACH (2023): Dollar Tree and its vendor Zeroed-In Technologies were investigated over a breach (Aug. 7-8, 2023) affecting 1,977,486 current and former Dollar Tree/Family Dollar EMPLOYEES (names, dates of birth, SSNs) — a third-party HR/analytics vendor breach rather than a direct Dollar Tree systems failure.
Data sharing
GENUINELY NOTABLE 'BROKEN BANNER' PRIVACY CASE (D'Antonio v. Dollar Tree, N.D. Cal., filed 2025): alleges Dollar Tree's website presented a cookie-consent banner offering a clear 'Reject Advertising Cookies' choice — but CONTINUED TRACKING users who clicked reject anyway. The case reportedly survived a motion to dismiss on invasion-of-privacy, intrusion-upon-seclusion and CIPA claims (ruling not independently verified this pass), with courts in similar 'broken banner' cases reasoning that promising to stop tracking and then not doing so makes the resulting intrusion 'deceptive' and 'highly offensive' — even though ordinary public web browsing isn't normally considered private. The named plaintiff ultimately voluntarily dismissed his own individual claim (Feb 2026), though the case had already survived the key dismissal motion. This 'broken banner' pattern was separately documented hitting companies across many sectors, including Nvidia (Tech & Semiconductors tab, if covered).
Fees and billing
SEPARATE LITIGATION (Murphy v. Dollar Tree, 2026; current status not verified as of Oct 2026): alleges Dollar Tree printed MORE THAN THE LAST FIVE DIGITS of customers' credit card numbers on receipts — conduct that, if proven, would violate the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), which specifically limits how much card-number information can appear on a printed receipt to prevent exactly this kind of exposure.
Contacts
Privacy contact. Not recorded.
Legal notice. Not verified this pass. If publicly traded: SEC Form 10-K cover page gives the official corporate address; the Secretary of State business-entity search in the state of incorporation gives the registered agent, which must accept service. If private: the state registered agent is usually the only reliable route.
Mailing address. Not recorded.
Evidence
No claims have been itemized for this row yet.
No sources are on file for this row yet.
Source vault
Link status: Candidate - not yet fetched
| Document | Last fetch | |
|---|---|---|
| Privacy policy dollartree.com/privacy-policy | Not fetched yet | NO (HTML only) |
| Terms of service dollartree.com/terms-of-use | Not fetched yet | NO (HTML only) |
| Website No URL recorded | Not fetched yet | — |
| Primary source No URL recorded Verification: Unverified - heuristic first draft | Not fetched yet | — |
Enforcement
No enforcement actions are linked to this row.
State statute
No HQ state on file, so no state statute applies by headquarters.