The lawsuit centers on how Walgreens set “usual and customary” prescription prices for people using insurance, compared with the discounted cash prices offered through its Walgreens Prescription Savings Club. Plaintiffs allege that for years (Jan. 1, 2007 to Nov. 18, 2024), Walgreens did not treat Savings Club prices as part of the benchmark it reported or used for reimbursement, even though those club rates could be lower than what insured customers and their health plans were charged. That gap matters because pharmacy claims often flow through a complex system—patients, insurers, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and pharmacies—where the price submitted on a claim influences what the insurer pays and what the patient owes as a copay or coinsurance. The case was filed on the theory that this pricing approach inflated what insured consumers and third-party payors paid for many drugs, effectively making them miss out on lower “real-world” prices available at the same pharmacy. Walgreens denies wrongdoing but agreed to a $100 million settlement, with 80% allocated to third-party payors and 20% to individuals, paid on a pro rata basis depending on eligible purchases; claims must be submitted by April 17, 2025, and documentation may be required (especially for higher dollar claims or for “unknown” claimants). More broadly, the settlement highlights ongoing scrutiny of pharmacy pricing transparency and the definition of “usual and customary” pricing—an area shaped by insurer and PBM contract terms, state pharmacy rules, and consumer protection laws—and it echoes other disputes in the industry where pharmacies or PBMs have faced claims that discount programs, cash prices, or negotiated rates were not properly reflected in what insured patients and plans ultimately paid.