this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
670 points (99.4% liked)

News

30438 readers
3118 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
WrenFeathers@lemmy.world
admiralpatrick@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
670
UnitedHealthcare sued by shareholders over reaction to CEO's killing (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 287 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 115 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You don't have to be a millionaires trust fund baby to own stocks or to sue as a shareholder.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] PolarKraken@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

PREACH. More of this please!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HeyJoe@lemmy.world 218 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Everything about this is incredible.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 99 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 94 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 32 points 1 month ago

Is this the Late stage capitalism version of the Turing test?

Nailed it.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 79 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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."

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 53 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 23 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 57 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 50 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I love that they're saying the quiet part out loud

[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 39 points 1 month ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

It ended all hope. Now everybody's just screaming into the void.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 39 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Time to name and shame these shareholders.

fucking ghouls.

[–] mspencer712@programming.dev 39 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[–] braxy29@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

[–] Goretantath@lemm.ee 14 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Fucking disgusting. Shareholders are a plague upon the Earth.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 8 points 1 month ago

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

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

This could definitely be a lawsuit to draw public attention to UHC's anti-consumer practices. It's really all that makes sense.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[–] beejboytyson@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] audaxdreik@pawb.social 4 points 1 month ago

Reposting top level to address "false flag" claims:

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.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

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

[–] Kraiden@kbin.earth 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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"

[–] PunkRockSportsFan@fanaticus.social 2 points 1 month ago

If you can deny help from someone, then I will defend the thing that Luigi (allegedly) done.