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.
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.
Reposting top level to address “false flag” claims:
- 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.
The group, […] argued that the public backlash prevented the company from pursuing “the aggressive, anti-consumer tactics that it would need to achieve” its earnings goals.
Sorry, am I missing something here or is this them saying the quiet part out loud?
I read this as “Investors are annoyed that public backlash prevented UHG from fucking over, and in some cases KILLING their customers, and wanted the company to acknowledge sooner that they wouldn’t be able to fuck over and kill their customers”
Customers are the people whom a business serves. The customers are not the poor people, who pay for insurance and get denied. UHC’s customers are the share holders. That is who the company provides services and benefits for.
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.
Wow, they really are saying the quiet part out loud without even a hint of understanding what they just said.
Amazing, if it wasn’t so vomit disgusting
look at the face of this vacant idiot.
Ok lol. Amazing.
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.
If you can deny help from someone, then I will defend the thing that Luigi (allegedly) done.
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.
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.
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.
Them and voters.
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.
