Ohio Pension Fund Seeks Lead Role in Target Investor Lawsuit Over Pride Campaign Fallout

State Teachers Retirement System claims Target misled investors about boycott risks, resulting in billions in market losses

The State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (Ohio STRS) has filed a motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit against retail giant Target Corporation. The pension fund claims that Target’s controversial 2023 LGBT-Pride campaign and related corporate policies cost investors billions in market value while the company misled shareholders about potential risks.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleges that Target and its executives, including CEO Brian Cornell, made false and misleading statements about the company’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

“Target knew about significant risks but kept the information hidden from investors,” stated Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who is representing the state pension fund in the case.

Ohio STRS reportedly suffered losses exceeding $3.5 million on its Target stock holdings when the company’s share price plummeted following consumer boycotts of the retailer’s Pride Month campaign in May 2023. According to court documents, Target’s market capitalization dropped by approximately $25 billion after the backlash, and the company experienced its first sales decline in six years.

The pension fund’s motion argues it should lead the consolidated legal action because it has the largest financial interest of any lead plaintiff candidate, having purchased 361,897 shares of Target common stock during the relevant period.

A competing motion has been filed by the State Board of Administration of Florida (SBA), which is also seeking lead plaintiff status.

The lawsuit claims Target’s leadership was well aware of potential consumer backlash risks, having previously experienced boycotts in 2016 over the company’s stance on transgender bathroom policies. Despite this history, the complaints allege Target assured investors it was monitoring social and political risks while actually focusing only on risks associated with failing to achieve its ESG/DEI goals.

“This case isn’t a debate over differing ideologies – it’s about a company’s duty to give investors an honest assessment of risk and reward,” Yost noted in his statement supporting the motion.

The court will now decide whether to consolidate the related cases and appoint a lead plaintiff to represent the interests of all affected Target investors.