The receipt from a Domino’s order is not something most people study carefully. You order the pizza, you pay, the receipt goes in the bag or the email inbox, and that’s the end of it. But somewhere on some of those receipts, printed in the itemised section below the subtotal, there is a line that reads “Tax 2.” It looks like a tax. It is located where taxes are. The word “tax” appears in it. According to a class action lawsuit filed in federal court in California in February 2026, it is not a tax — and the fact that Domino’s called it one is precisely the problem.
The case, Murphy v. Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC, was filed on February 26th in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Lead plaintiff John Murphy, represented by the Almeida Law Group, alleges that Domino’s has been adding mandatory fees to customer orders in California, labeling them “Tax 2” on receipts, while the money was actually going toward the company’s own business expenses rather than any government obligation.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Murphy v. Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC, et al. |
| Filed | February 26, 2026 — U.S. District Court, Northern District of California |
| Lead Plaintiff | John Murphy — represented by the Almeida Law Group; seeking jury trial and damages |
| Core Allegation | Domino’s added mandatory fees labeled “Tax 2” on receipts — charges that went to company expenses, not government tax collections |
| Laws Allegedly Violated | California Honest Pricing Act (SB 478) and state consumer protection statutes — requiring all mandatory fees to be included in advertised prices |
| Lawsuit Type | Class action — targeting California consumers who paid the fee on in-person orders |
| Broader Context | “Junk fee” enforcement is a growing priority in California and federally — FTC and state AGs have pursued similar cases against hotels, ticket platforms, and delivery apps |
| Domino’s Response | Not publicly detailed as of filing date — case is pending |
| What to Check | California customers with recent Domino’s receipts should look for a “Tax 2” line item separate from standard sales tax |
| Consumer Rights Info | California junk fee and pricing rules at California Attorney General Consumer Protection |
The complaint alleges this practice violates California’s Honest Pricing Act — SB 478, which took effect in 2024 and requires businesses to include all mandatory fees in the advertised price of a product rather than adding them at the point of payment. The lawsuit seeks to represent all California consumers who paid this charge on in-person orders and is asking for a jury trial and damages.
The Honest Pricing Act has been generating litigation since it came into force, targeting what California regulators and the broader consumer protection community have taken to calling “junk fees” — the mandatory add-ons that appear at checkout and inflate the final price beyond what was advertised. Hotels have faced enforcement over resort fees, ticket platforms over service charges, delivery apps over order fees.
The pizza chain is a less expected target than some of those industries, but the underlying mechanism is similar: a price is advertised, a fee is added at the point of payment, and the customer pays without having been told the real total when they made the decision to order. California decided that model was deceptive. The lawsuit is testing whether Domino’s falls within that definition.
The inference that the “Tax 2” designation carries makes it especially helpful for the plaintiff’s case. It is not neutral to refer to anything as a tax. It alludes to a fee imposed by the government, something that is not beyond the company’s control or the purview of a customer’s discussion with a firm.
Labeling the fee as a tax is more than just an ambiguous disclosure if it is indeed being used for operating costs, as the complaint claims. It’s a particular description intended to make the accusation appear inevitable and valid even when it might not be. As of the filing date, Domino’s has not made public the specifics of its response, and it is still unknown how the firm will defend the label.
It’s difficult to ignore the fact that this case comes at a time when fee transparency has emerged as a truly contentious area of consumer law, with federal and state regulators acting concurrently in ways that will ultimately result in clearer standards—or more litigation, depending on how the courts interpret laws like SB 478.
For the time being, customers in California who have placed an order with Domino’s and would like to know if they were charged are advised to search for a “Tax 2” line beneath the regular sales tax on their receipt. If it is present, the complaint questions whether they were informed of it prior to placing their order. Most likely they weren’t.
