Target Corporation is currently defending a consolidated securities fraud class action tied to its 2023 Pride merchandise and diversity policies, two wage class actions brought by warehouse workers, a consumer case over delivery fees charged through its Shipt subsidiary, and a pay-transparency class action in Washington that reached a preliminary settlement in January 2026. The company has also worked through a long list of resolved lawsuits over the past two decades, including the 2013 data breach settlements, California pricing and hazardous-waste actions, EEOC hiring claims, and the landmark website accessibility case brought by the National Federation of the Blind. Here is where the major Target lawsuits stand.
Securities Class Actions Over Pride Merchandise and DEI
The largest cluster of pending Target litigation involves shareholders who say the company misled them about the financial risks of its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and its Pride Month product lines.
The first case, Craig v. Target Corporation, was filed on August 8, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida with support from America First Legal. The complaint alleged that Target’s board violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by telling investors in its 2022 and 2023 proxy statements that it was monitoring ESG and DEI risks while only acknowledging the risk of failing to meet those mandates, not the risk that the mandates themselves would trigger a consumer backlash.1D&O Diary. Target Hit With ESG Backlash Securities Suit2Forbes. Florida Sues Target Over Pride Merchandise as More States Take Legal Action Against DEI3Reuters. Target Must Face Shareholder Lawsuit Over Pride Backlash, US Judge Rules
On December 4, 2024, Judge John Badalamenti denied Target’s motion to dismiss. He found that plaintiffs had adequately alleged “severe recklessness” by CEO Brian Cornell regarding his knowledge of prior campaign backlash and had identified specific misleading statements in the proxy filings.3Reuters. Target Must Face Shareholder Lawsuit Over Pride Backlash, US Judge Rules
Two related suits followed. On January 31, 2025, the City of Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund filed a class action making similar allegations and citing a 22% stock drop on November 20, 2024, which it said erased $16 billion in market capitalization.4BusinessWire. Grant Eisenhofer Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Target Corporation on Behalf of Pension Fund On February 20, 2025, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier and America First Legal filed a third suit on behalf of the State Board of Administration of Florida, which manages state pension money.5CNN. Target DEI Lawsuit
On November 20, 2025, the cases were consolidated into a lead case and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The Florida consolidated docket, In re Target Corp. Securities Class Action Litigation, was terminated the day before the transfer; no motions to dismiss were filed there and no amended complaint was entered, indicating the closure was procedural rather than a resolution on the merits.6Advancing DEI Meltzer Center. City of Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund v. Target Corporation et al7CourtListener. In re Target Corp. Securities Class Action Litigation
Warehouse Wage and Hour Class Actions
Target’s distribution centers have generated several class actions alleging workers were not paid for time spent walking to their stations and clearing mandatory security screenings at the end of a shift.
Sadler v. Target (New Jersey)
The furthest along is Sadler v. Target Corp., which covers hourly, nonexempt employees at Target distribution centers in Burlington, Perth Amboy, and Logan Township, New Jersey. A federal judge certified a class of about 13,700 current and former employees in January 2025, reaching back to August 6, 2019. Target denied the allegations but agreed to a $4.6 million settlement, which received preliminary approval on October 30, 2025.8Newsweek. Target Checks Americans Settlement
After $1.53 million in attorneys’ fees and a $10,000 service award to lead plaintiff Krystal Sadler, roughly $2.75 million is being divided pro rata among class members based on Target’s pay records. Payments go out automatically, so eligible employees do not need to file a claim. The deadline to opt out or object was February 13, 2026, with a final approval hearing set for February 24, 2026.8Newsweek. Target Checks Americans Settlement
Kratzert v. Target (New York)
A parallel case was filed on August 26, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, covering hourly warehouse workers at Target’s Wilton and Amsterdam facilities. Plaintiffs Jeanna Kratzert, Neil Mosher, and Jon Karaffa allege employees had to walk up to about half a mile to reach their departments without being paid for that time and were also required to attend unpaid pre-shift meetings.9Times Union. Lawsuit Target Warehouses Workers Paid Plaintiffs’ counsel has estimated back pay of roughly $1,000 to $2,000 per worker for each year of employment since 2019. Target moved to dismiss on November 24, 2025, and plaintiffs opposed the motion on December 24, 2025.10Katz Banks. Target Unpaid Time New York
Overtime Misclassification Suit
In February 2020, former employee Andrew Davis filed a federal class action alleging Target misclassified its “Executive Team Leaders” as exempt from overtime. The complaint said these managers were scheduled for more than 50 hours a week but spent most of their time on hourly work like stocking, unloading, and running registers. Target has maintained the classification is correct.11Minnesota Reformer. Target Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Wage Theft
Washington Pay Transparency Settlement
Brinkman v. Target Corporation, filed in King County Superior Court, alleged that Target job postings in Washington did not include wage scales, salary ranges, or compensation benefits as required by state law (RCW 49.58.110). The proposed class covers people who applied for Target jobs in Washington between January 1, 2023, and July 26, 2025, when the posting lacked the required information.12BusinessWire/CDN. Brinkman v. Target Corporation Settlement Notice
A settlement of up to $2.225 million received preliminary approval on January 2, 2026. Individual class members may be eligible for a minimum payment of $1,711.93. The deadline for claims, objections, or exclusions is March 31, 2026, and the final approval hearing is set for May 5, 2026. Target has not admitted wrongdoing.12BusinessWire/CDN. Brinkman v. Target Corporation Settlement Notice
Dawson v. Target and Shipt: Hidden Delivery Fees
A California consumer filed Dawson v. Target Corporation, Shipt, Inc. in September 2024 in San Francisco Superior Court, accusing Target and its Shipt delivery subsidiary of “drip pricing.” The complaint says the companies advertised “free” or flat-rate delivery to California customers but tacked on a $3.99 “CA Shopper Benefits Fee” on every order without adequate disclosure. Plaintiffs allege the fee was created to recover costs the companies incurred under California’s Proposition 22, which requires benefits for gig workers.13ClassAction.org. Dawson v. Target Corporation et al The case was later refiled in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where it remained pending in late 2025.14Truth in Advertising. Target’s Shipt Delivery Service
Notable Resolved Target Lawsuits
California Mobile App Pricing (2022)
Seven California district attorneys — Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Diego, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, and Ventura counties — settled with Target in early 2022 over three pricing practices: charging a different price at the register than the shelf tag showed, using geo-fencing to raise mobile-app prices when a shopper was near a store, and advertising app prices without saying whether they applied online, in-store, or both. Target paid $5 million in civil penalties, about $200,000 in indirect restitution, and roughly $174,000 in costs, and agreed to stop the geo-fencing practice.15Legal Reader. Target Settle Phone Overcharging Lawsuit
2013 Data Breach Settlements
The 2013 holiday-season breach exposed up to 40 million payment cards and personal information for at least 60 million additional customers. The consumer class action In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (MDL No. 2522) produced a $10 million settlement given final approval in November 2015 and affirmed by the Eighth Circuit in June 2018. Claimants with documented losses could recover up to $10,000; the rest shared what remained. Checks went out in May 2019, with some individual payments reported as high as $1,201.88.16Top Class Actions. Target Data Breach Class Action Settlement
Target also paid $18.5 million in May 2017 to settle claims by 47 states and the District of Columbia — at the time the largest multistate data breach settlement. The deal required Target to build a formal information security program, encrypt cardholder data, segment its network, appoint a security executive, and undergo independent assessments.17Texas Attorney General. AG Paxton Announces $18.5 Million Settlement With Target to Resolve 2013 Data Breach
EEOC Pre-Hire Assessments (2015)
Target paid $2.8 million in August 2015 to resolve an EEOC investigation that began in 2006. The agency found reasonable cause to believe three pre-hire assessments used for exempt professional jobs disproportionately screened out Black, Asian, and female applicants, in violation of Title VII, and that one of them violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by using medical-style questions interpreted by psychologists before a job offer. Target had already stopped using the assessments; it did not admit wrongdoing and noted the EEOC found no disparities in actual hires.18Fortune. Target Discriminatory Hiring19EEOC. Target Corporation Pay $2.8 Million to Resolve EEOC Discrimination Finding
Age Discrimination in Job Ads (2023)
The Communications Workers of America and the AARP Foundation resolved claims in 2023 that Target used social media targeting to direct job ads at younger audiences in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Target defended the practice as lawful but agreed to build a hiring website for older workers, feature older workers in job ads, attend job fairs aimed at older applicants, and drop age-proxy language such as “millennial” or “digital native” from recruiting materials.20Outten & Golden. Communications Workers of America v. Target Corporation
NFB v. Target: Website Accessibility (2008)
The National Federation of the Blind sued Target in 2006 over the inaccessibility of Target.com to blind users of screen-reading software. The court ruled that commercial websites can be required to be accessible under the ADA and state law, the first U.S. decision of its kind. In August 2008 Target established a $6 million fund for the California class, agreed to make its site accessible to assistive technology, and entered a three-year arrangement with the NFB for ongoing testing.21Disability Rights Advocates. National Federation of the Blind (NFB) et al. v. Target Corporation22National Federation of the Blind. NFB v. Target Settlement
California Hazardous Waste Actions
California’s attorney general, 24 local district attorneys, and the Los Angeles and San Diego city attorneys reached a $22.5 million settlement with Target in 2011 over improper disposal of hazardous materials at more than 240 California stores. Investigators alleged that pesticides, electronics, pharmaceuticals, batteries, and pool chemicals — one to two tons per store each year over seven years — were placed in trash compactors or poured down drains to avoid proper disposal costs. Target agreed to hire an outside firm to audit its waste practices.23Ventura County DA. People v. Target Corporation A follow-up action for violations between 2012 and 2016 produced an additional $7.4 million judgment in 2018, framed as a revision to the earlier settlement.24California Attorney General. Attorney General Becerra Announces $7.4 Million Statewide Settlement With Target