A group of investors sued UnitedHealthcare Group on Wednesday, accusing the company of misleading them after the killing of its CEO, Brian Thompson.
The class action lawsuit — filed in the Southern District of New York — accuses the health insurance company of not initially adjusting their 2025 net earning outlook to factor in how Thompson’s killing would affect their operations.
…
The group, which is seeking unspecified damages, argued that the public backlash prevented the company from pursuing “the aggressive, anti-consumer tactics that it would need to achieve” its earnings goals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
It ended all hope. Now everybody’s just screaming into the void.
The group, which is seeking unspecified damages, argued that the public backlash prevented the company from pursuing “the aggressive, anti-consumer tactics that it would need to achieve” its earnings goals.
“As such, the Company was deliberately reckless in doubling down on its previously issued guidance,” the suit reads.
They really just fucking said it…
This economic system is openly hostile to the vast majority of us, the only choice we have is if we participate in it, and that’s not really a choice. Inflation is used to force people into investing, it’s literally there so people don’t just put money under the mattress to save for retirement.
There’s other ways than letting the wealthy do anything and everything they want to everyone else. But it gets harder every day to change it
I strongly suspect this is from some people who own a few shares specifically to file this suit and shed light on the whole system.
The language used clearly spells out that the point of the lawsuit is to roast the company and make it part of the public record. I am surprised that more people here, given our vast experience with trolls, can’t see through this massive trolling.
I am surprised that more people here, given our vast experience with trolls, can’t see through this massive trolling.
There was a recent inpour of people from the other site, and they spend all their time posting one-liners based on the headline. They don’t rea the article, most of the time they don’t even understand the headline, just the words in that order.
Reposted this to social media and got that pushback from my conservative friend almost immediately, it’s somewhat of a talking point.
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/unitedhealth-group-lawsuit-ceo-investors-mangione-b2747303.html
- https://rosenlegal.com/
- https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/unitedhealthcare-shareholders-class-action.pdf
While there’s certainly nothing conclusive there, I’m not really sure I see the point? When the murder first happened, there were already all sorts of talking points about UHC having twice the national average of denials while pocketing billions in wealth and using AI.
When you ask me who is angrier and has more legal capacity to take this kind of action, I’m gonna go with the shareholders. The American people should be the angrier party, but it’s a lot more abstract for them. Shareholders lost MILLIONS. Because, as the filing says, they didn’t make appropriate adjustments to reflect the reality of that situation.
Biggest point of contention here is the language used and it’s ugly, but it’s direct. People can make false flag claims without evidence until the cows come home, but I don’t smell it here.
I hope Adam McKay makes a movie of all this in 3 or so years.
Then you are overly optimistic about the state of the American insurance system…
You think the people owning millions of dollars of stock don’t understand that their profits come from denying claims and people dying?
They’ve normalized that and their social circles 100% do not have us in their “in group” because since birth they have never interacted with people who aren’t wealthy.
We are not people to trust fund babies
We usually talk about the in-group/out group split like that with ethnicity or even religion, but it can develop along any line, and for generations has been there a long economic lines.
They would see nothing wrong with making the statement:
the public backlash prevented the company from pursuing “the aggressive, anti-consumer tactics that it would need to achieve” its earnings goals.
For a recent example, look at feudalism, the royalty were separated from commoners due to privilege and for pretty much all of them they started looking at them as a cop.pletely different species with zero innate value.
It only ended because wealth inequality started to decrease leading to the merchant class providing an opportunity for social mobility that rivaled lesser nobility.
But wealth inequality has been going the other way for a while, we’re already seeing the wealthy act like feudal lords again. I know I went on a rant, but c’mon, the rich are 100% out of touch enough in 2025 to make that statement and genuinely not expect anyone to be upset. It takes effort for them to acknowledge we’re also human, so sometimes they just fucking forget.
Absolutely. They specifically avoid using humanizing language in their filing. Then again, legal language also avoids using humanizing language because there really isn’t a standard legal definition for “person”. No, I actually had to look it up and I could not find one. A lawyer wrote about it in a blog post and it turns out it’s troubling to define “person”, for a myriad of reasons. I quote the blog post in question:
Since Roman times, the law has classified everything as either a ‘person’ or a ‘thing’. But the legal term ‘person’ has never meant the same thing as ‘human’ – it is traditionally seen as a formal classification that simply says who (or what) can bear rights. ‘Things’, by contrast, are property – and as such, cannot bear rights.
So, they call us “consumers” instead. “Voters”, “Human Capital”, it’s all the same. But they will never see us as people.
PREACH. More of this please!
You don’t have to be a millionaires trust fund baby to own stocks or to sue as a shareholder.
But it’s more like the people who lost millions of dollars because of this sued, then a couple people with a handful of shares decided to sue one of the largest fucking companies on the planet to draw Americans attention to the fact their healthcare system sucks in 2025…
Like, just think for a second which is more likely, even though both are technically plausible
This economic system is openly hostile to the vast majority of us
Um, this post was about the mercenary healthcare system. Sure capitalism is bad, but don’t be the vegan at the party, dude.
Everything about this is incredible.
I’m old. 53. I never gave too much thought to the whole capitalism vs communism vs socialism debate until my early 30’s.
But at my age, it’s become blatantly, obscenely obvious that unregulated, laissez-faire, free market capitalism is evil. That “fiducial duty” to prioritize stranger’s money is more important than human lives.
Putting investors above common, basic decency is abominable, and irredeemable.
I don’t give two fucks about shareholders, or their “investment.”
I’m just a hair younger than you. I’ve never for a moment entertained communism. I’ve always been a believer in capitalism, but with the regulations and constraints we had in maybe the 70’s (not going to imply there was a golden age of capitalism, but if there was it was before god damned Reagan). And if we can’t regulate capitalism, I’m all for strangling it. Fuck everything about this dystopian bullshit. No one gives one single shit what happens beyond the next quarter. No one is in business to build things or solve problems—they are here to make fucking money.
Fuck. Unfettered. Capitalism.
The reason why communism is not great is because to implement it (at least now) it leads to authoritarianism.
IMO social democracy (which is regulated capitalism) which we see in Scandinavian countries looks the best right now.
This is why I am a Social Democrat. I think it’s the only system we have that works well enough for mostly everyone.
There is no way from here in the USA now to Scandinavian balance, using any path of democracy.
You arnt old. And I also feel the same as you. I am becoming anti consumer. I hope as a last chance Gen x get to go out in a blaze. I am becoming more activist. We have been fighters all our lives. Time to use it for good.
It’s as simple as this, my mom explained it to me at 8 years old: “A lot of parents give their kids money for good grades or doing chores, but that teaches them to do things for the money and not because it’s the right thing to do.”
It’s a habit, like a drug addiction, your brain is rewarded by profit and molds itself around that, altering your view of right and wrong.
Agreed.
Rapacious greed is a mental illness that is instilled in childhood.
Adam Smith was the biggest proponent of free markets.
However in “The Wealth of Nations” he makes clear that if all participants cannot choose NOT to participate, it is NOT a free market and should be regulated.
He also proposed regulation, and limits.
He also died 235 years ago…
Like, if you asked any of those “great thinkers” if people 200+ years in the future should still be relying on their opinion and not a single one would agree.
Humanity’s greatest strength is exchanging ideas and building on them, the rate we do so has skyrocketed since then. So much shit has changed that what people said back then should really only be useful on trivia night or when learning history.
If it’s still applicable it means we stagnated, and that’s a bad sign for society.
We should understand the framework and what came before, but under no circumstances looking to them for literal guidance from the ancients type shit. We live in drastically different worlds.
Oh, I’m in agreement.
It’s the reason “The Founders” of the Great American Experiment included the device of Amendments to The Constiution. They knew things would change, and need to be “amended.” Most of them were also rich land owning white men who thought only they deserved to make any important decisions, and a lot of them were slave owners.
I’m in no way fanboying anyone.
Yeah, didn’t mean it personally, just in general it gets old debating centuries old economic plans like we can’t figure out what works.
But amendments was the compromise, lots of the framers wanted to start from scratch every 20 years with a large vote on what makes it in the new.
Agreed.
So, how did he envision his ideal free market in which participants could choose not to participate? How was that supposed to work?
We can’t exactly opt out of capitalism.
Like at my local store. I can choose to buy a bottle of water or I can get water somewhere else.
With healthcare or utilities, for example, you don’t have an option so they cannot be considered free markets and should be regulated.
Clean drinking water, of course, is not something you can choose to be without, so maybe not the best example. Also, fuck Nestle.
Corporate monetary fiduciary duty is such a fucking insane bizzareoland concept to me.
I see you’re not familiar with The Rules of Acquisition…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvFYBkesqGU
Funny unverified rumor, but it’s believed that the GOP thought that The Ferengi were a mockery of Milton Friedman, and they stated the fictional race was “antisemitic.”
I have no problem believing it.
The fact that people can’t tell whether it was a group of activist investors highlighting the unethical behaviour of UHC, or if it was a morally depraved shareholder body that actually wants the company to be more anti-consumer, is absolutely insane.
Is this the Late stage capitalism version of the Turing test?
Is this the Late stage capitalism version of the Turing test?
Nailed it.
In a world gone Onion, that’s easily the most Onion’ish true story I’ve seen. So far…
They’re literally suing the company for not being evil enough.
That’s so insane that merely taking part in that suit should be seen as grounds for a psych hold.
The group, which is seeking unspecified damages, argued that the public backlash prevented the company from pursuing “the aggressive, anti-consumer tactics that it would need to achieve” its earnings goals.
I’m willing to bet that the group who filed this suit has done so in order to point out UHC’s “aggressive anti-consumer tactics.”
I think so, because this is too pants-on-head crazy to make any sense otherwise. I wonder how many shares these people own and when they bought them.
Could be people who own through mutual funds. Could be people who bought a share in the wake of The Incident with the intention of filing such a suit.
Prevented them from pursuing anti-consumer tactics? Seriously bleak. I wouldn’t expect anything less from shareholders in a health care insurance company in the United States.
I love that they’re saying the quiet part out loud
Well, they’ve normalized and made overt cruelty a virtue over the last 40 years through mass media.
Time to name and shame these shareholders.
fucking ghouls.
Fucking legends, if it’s more like “let’s make their anti-consumer tactics a material part of the suit and get internal communications in discovery.”
But you’re probably right.
they don’t seem to be concerned about the policies themselves, just that scrutiny means they can’t pursue those and because of that they can’t meet the forecasts.
FTA:
The investors described this as “materially false and misleading,” pointing to the immense public scrutiny the company and the broader health insurance industry experienced in the wake of Thompson’s killing.
The group, which is seeking unspecified damages, argued that the public backlash prevented the company from pursuing “the aggressive, anti-consumer tactics that it would need to achieve” its earnings goals.
“As such, the Company was deliberately reckless in doubling down on its previously issued guidance,” the suit reads.
The company eventually revised its 2025 outlook on April 17, citing a needed shift in corporate strategy — a move that caused its stock to drop more than 22% that day.
“The company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend the matter vigorously,” a UnitedHealthcare spokesperson said in a statement.
Thompson’s fatal shooting on the streets of New York City in broad daylight sent shockwaves across the nation.
Luigi Mangione, the 27-year-old man accused of the killing, has pleaded not guilty to federal and state charges against him. The legal defense fund for Mangione surpassed the $1 million mark in donations on Tuesday.
So the shareholders are declaring that Thompson’s killing successfully disrupted the company’s “aggressive anti-consumer tactics”.
It’s almost like they’re trying to encourage more of the same.
This (the suit) is a glorious bit of trolling, meant to keep UHC’s evildoing high up there in people’s newsfeeds. It provides clickbait headlines and tasty bits of content (much more to come I hope) like “aggressive, anti-consumer tactics” that will keep the sharing machine running and the victim complaints in full view.
This is brilliant, I wish I’d thought of the tactic. The class members have to own at least a share of stock while still being able to sleep at night. Where do you find such martyrs?
There’s got to be a name for this kind of method. I had a similar insight. I want to run for a public office as an independent and have one of my initial campaign pushes be about how I am the first openly gay person to run for that office.
The person currently holding that office is openly gay. However, he is very comfortable and no longer makes a point about it anymore now that he has a secure seat. I have no interest in holding that office. I just want to make him talk about it.
I as a working class, gay man. I am quite disgusted with the Palm Springs homosexuals who hide behind their wealth now that we have achieved a modicum of social acceptance. The fight is far from over for people who have to work for a living, so I thought about this as a way to just get people talking again about the needs of people who don’t fit the standard molds.
It’s not quite rat fucking but more the political equivalent of shit posting.
Fucking disgusting. Shareholders are a plague upon the Earth.
The language used in the lawsuit makes it sound like these shareholders are trying to highlight that UHC has to engage in anti-coksumer practices in order to reach their profit goals. We don’t know anything about who they are. Doesn’t take much to be a shareholder
This could definitely be a lawsuit to draw public attention to UHC’s anti-consumer practices. It’s really all that makes sense.
You can thank Milton Friedman. The MBA patron saint.
Them and voters.
I kind of understand where they are coming from, though. They are accusing the company of not adjusting their projected earnings in the face of a clear negative outlook.
EDIT: The company delivered earnings projections before his death, and then after it they publicly stated their earnings projections would not change. They are accused of not disclosing clear risks to earnings by saying nothing will change.
Wow, just when I thought these ppl couldn’t get more shitty they sue the company for not predicting how much money they would lose from a violent murder of thier employee. Brian this is what you died for, hope you see bud how little people cared about you.
