Target Corporation is currently defending or resolving a wide range of class action lawsuits, including wage-and-hour claims at its distribution centers, a Washington wage transparency settlement, an Illinois biometric privacy case, several false advertising suits over Good & Gather and other store-brand products, and a securities fraud action tied to its 2023 Pride merchandise campaign. A few of these Target class action lawsuits are paying out in 2026, and some pay eligible people automatically without a claim form.
Settlements You May Be Able to Claim Now
New Jersey Distribution Center Walking-Time Settlement
Target agreed to a $4.6 million settlement in Sadler v. Target Corp. (Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00030) covering hourly workers at its distribution centers in Burlington, Perth Amboy, and Logan Township, New Jersey. The underlying claim: employees were not paid for the time they spent walking to and from their work stations before and after shifts.1The Independent. Target Settlement New Jersey Employees Lawsuit
The class covers hourly, non-exempt “Progression Team Members” employed at those three facilities at any time since August 6, 2019. You do not need to file a claim. Payments are calculated automatically on a pro rata basis using Target’s own payroll records. Roughly $2.75 million of the fund is set aside for employee payments, with the rest going to attorney fees and administrative costs. The court granted preliminary approval on October 30, 2025, and set a final fairness hearing for February 24, 2026, in Camden.2NJ Distribution Center Settlement. Sadler v. Target Settlement FAQ
Washington Wage Transparency Settlement
If you applied for a job at Target in Washington between January 1, 2023, and July 26, 2025, you may be eligible for a share of a settlement of up to $2.225 million. In Brinkman v. Target Corporation (Case No. 24-2-25091-3-SEA), filed in King County Superior Court, the plaintiff alleged Target violated Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act by posting jobs that did not include required wage ranges and benefits information.3Top Class Actions. $2.225M Target Wage Transparency Class Action Settlement
Estimated payments are $1,711.93 per claim, capped at $5,000 per person. Payments are classified as non-wage damages and reported on a 1099 form. The claim filing deadline is March 31, 2026, and the final approval hearing is scheduled for May 5, 2026.4ClaimDepot. Target EPOA Settlement
Pending Wage and Overtime Cases
New York Warehouse Walking Time
In August 2025, hourly employees at Target’s distribution centers in Wilton and Amsterdam, New York filed Kratzert v. Target Corporation (Case No. 1:25-cv-01171, N.D.N.Y.), alleging they had to walk as much as half a mile from building entrances to their assigned departments to clock in and out without being paid for that time, and that mandatory pre-shift meetings were also unpaid. The proposed class covers current and former hourly employees at those facilities at any time after January 10, 2019.5Katz Banks Kumin LLP. Target Unpaid Time New York
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in November 2025 adding a third named plaintiff, and Target moved to dismiss. The court issued an order on that motion on December 9, 2025, though the substance is not reflected in available records.6CourtListener. Kratzert v. Target Corporation Docket
Executive Team Leader Overtime Misclassification
Target has faced collective-action claims that it misclassified its in-store Executive Team Leaders as exempt from overtime. In Davis v. Target Corporation (Case No. 0:20-cv-00490, D. Minn.), filed in February 2020, the plaintiff alleged ETLs were labeled “executives” but spent most of their shifts stocking shelves, running registers, and unloading trucks. The complaint said ETLs were routinely scheduled for 47.5-hour weeks but actually worked 50 to 60 hours due to staffing cuts, with no overtime pay.7Classaction.org. Class Action Alleges Target’s Executive Team Leaders Owed Overtime Wages
In a related case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Target’s motion for summary judgment in February 2022, finding that whether the plaintiff’s duties were truly executive in nature was a factual question for a jury. The plaintiff, an ETL earning $70,000 to $74,000 per year, estimated her effective hourly rate at roughly $21.89 based on 60- to 70-hour weeks.8SHRM. Target Denied Summary Judgment in Managers’ Overtime Claim
Illinois Biometric Privacy Case
In May 2024, four Illinois women filed Arnold v. Target Corporation (Case No. 1:24-cv-04452) in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging Target used facial recognition technology in its store surveillance cameras to collect and store customers’ biometric data without written notice or consent, as required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The complaint also alleged Target shared biometric data with third parties, including law enforcement, without authorization.9Classaction.org. Arnold et al. v. Target Corporation Complaint
On November 21, 2024, Judge Jeremy Daniel denied Target’s motion to dismiss, saying the plaintiffs’ allegations “present a story that holds together.” The plaintiffs are seeking $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation and $1,000 per negligent violation, plus injunctive relief.10USA Today. Target Class Action Suit Biometric Data This case applies to customers in Illinois stores; BIPA is a state law and does not reach shoppers in other states.
False Advertising and Pricing Cases
Shipt “Free Delivery” Fee in California
In Dawson v. Target Corporation and Shipt, Inc. (Case No. 3:24-cv-08167, N.D. Cal.), filed in November 2024, a California consumer alleged Target and Shipt advertise “free delivery” for Shipt members on orders over $35 but then add a mandatory $3.99 “CA Shopper Benefits Fee” disclosed only at the final checkout screen. The complaint called the practice “textbook bait-and-switch” drip pricing and alleged Target used the fee to offset costs tied to California’s Proposition 22. The proposed class includes all California consumers who paid the fee within the statute of limitations.11Classaction.org. Class Action Lawsuit Calls Target Shipt Delivery Fee a Textbook Bait-and-Switch
Bed Sheet Thread Counts
In Panelli v. Target Corporation (No. 24-6640), a consumer alleged Target sold bed sheets with thread counts that were “unattainable and materially misleading” for 100% cotton products. The district court dismissed the case, reasoning no reasonable consumer could be deceived by a physically impossible claim. On April 20, 2026, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the proper question under California consumer protection law is “whether a reasonable consumer is likely to be misled, not whether the claim could theoretically be true.”12Crosner Legal. Ninth Circuit Revives Consumer Class Action Target False Advertising
Avocado Oil Purity
In Valdovinos v. Target Corporation (Case No. 24-cv-8572, C.D. Cal.), filed in October 2024, a plaintiff alleged Target’s Good & Gather avocado oil was marketed as “100% pure” when testing indicated it was adulterated with other oils. The case was pending as of the latest available information.13Truth in Advertising. Good and Gather Avocado Oil
Shelf Pricing in New Jersey
A class action in the District of New Jersey alleged Target displayed misleading prices on in-store shelf signs, causing shoppers to pay 5% to 20% more at checkout than the posted price. The suit characterized the practice as a bait-and-switch violating New Jersey’s consumer protection statute.14Bernstein Liebhard LLP. Target Shelf Pricing Class Action
Other Pending Product-Labeling Suits
Target has been hit with a rolling series of smaller product-labeling cases filed or reported between 2024 and 2026. Reported claims include that yogurt-covered snacks don’t contain real yogurt, that Market Pantry coffee creamer overstates servings per container, that Good & Gather tuna is falsely advertised as “sustainably caught,” that Good & Gather veggie straws marketed as “preservative-free” contain chemical preservatives, and that Up & Up diaper pail refills provide significantly less than the advertised one-year supply. Most are in early stages with no publicly reported settlements or final rulings.15Classaction.org. Target Corporation Class Action News
Pride Campaign Securities Fraud Case
In January 2025, investors filed Craig v. Target Corporation (Case No. 2:23-cv-00599) in the Middle District of Florida, alleging Target and thirteen of its directors misled shareholders about financial risks tied to its environmental, social, and governance initiatives, including the May 2023 Pride Month merchandise campaign. The complaint said Target’s 2021 through 2023 proxy statements failed to warn investors about consumer boycott risk, and that backlash wiped out roughly $10 billion in market value in a single week in May 2023 and more than $25 billion over the following months. The suit alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.16Hogan Lovells. Federal District Court Denies Target’s Motion to Dismiss Securities Claims
On December 4, 2024, the court denied Target’s motion to dismiss and refused to transfer the case to Minnesota.17Bloomberg Law. Target Loses Bids to Toss Pride Marketing Lawsuit, Change Venue Docket records indicate the case was terminated in November 2025. The reason for termination is not reflected in the available records.18CourtListener. Craig v. Target Corporation
Older Settlements Worth Knowing
2013 Data Breach
Target’s December 2013 data breach compromised payment card and personal information for an estimated 100 million customers and produced the largest set of class action resolutions in the company’s history. Under In re: Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (MDL No. 2522, D. Minn.), Target funded a $10 million consumer settlement. Claimants with documented losses could receive up to $10,000 each; those without documentation received a pro rata share initially estimated around $40 per person.19U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Order After appeals, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the settlement in June 2018, and checks were finally mailed in May 2019. Some claimants reported payments as high as $1,201.88.20Top Class Actions. Target Data Breach Class Action Settlement Target also reached a $39.4 million settlement with banks and credit unions over card reissuance and fraud costs, and in May 2017 agreed to an $18.5 million settlement with 47 state attorneys general.21California Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General Becerra: Target Settles Record $18.5 Million Credit Card Data Breach All deadlines have passed; no new claims can be filed.
Target Debit Card Fees
In Walters v. Target Corp. (Case No. 3:16-cv-01678, S.D. Cal.), consolidated with Dixon et al. v. Target Corp., cardholders alleged Target charged returned-payment fees on its Target Debit Card even when customers had sufficient funds in their bank accounts. Target agreed to roughly $8.2 million total: $5 million in cash and about $3.2 million in debt reductions. Judge M. James Lorenz granted final approval in October 2020, and class members received automatic payments or debt reductions without filing claims.22TZ Legal. $5 Million Class Action Settlement Challenging Target’s Returned Payment Fees
If you think you fall inside an open class, check the official settlement site for the specific case before any claim deadline. For the New Jersey and Washington settlements above, confirm with Target’s payroll records (New Jersey) or submit a claim by March 31, 2026 (Washington).