No one “fled” the scene. There was no mistake of identifying it as possibly counterfeit. The email they sent out to the masses identified her as a thief and a forger. They attached her picture, how much more do you need to know that Target was 100% in the wrong. Run down to the Post Office and hang it on the wall!

I agree with the juries verdict, you can bet your (or Target’s) “last dollar” they will not make this mistake again.

The lesson corporations take from a case should be simply not to accuse a person of serious crimes, and not to publish that accusation to large numbers of law enforcement agencies, unless there is solid evidence of the person’s guilt. Trying to use a valid $100 bill to pay, and leaving the store when told the bill would not be accepted, is not “solid evidence” of counterfeiting.

It is sad how every once in a while this site seizes on ameritorious actions and mocks it, sometimes by distorting the facts as here, sometimes in other ways. I think this drastically weakens the persuasiveness of this site.

No one should publish and disseminate an accusation of criminal conduct without being certain that they are correct, or they do so at their own peril.

on penalty of $3.1 million

Juries arrive at damage awards, as you are painfully aware. The awards are the subject to review, as you are painfully aware. The alternative is to have all awards subject to “Ted Review,” as you might think advisable, but that’s not the American system, as you are painfully aware. While you think poorly of the Americans who sit on juries, there just aren’t enough “Teds” to manage all award decision-making to meet your expectations.

on a technicality

Hardly a technicality, but a well-established, long-standing cause of action.

that provided no lasting injury to anyone.

Ironic that you say such a thing, since you, more than anyone, find it reprehensible and damaging when anyone challenges your opinion and reputation. Being perhaps the most rabid of advocates, you of all people should appreciate the impact of having a reputation smeared. You hate to be challenged, but would deny that same sensibility to anyone else.

You clearly think no one should write an email without a lawyer by their side, on penalty of $3.1 million on a technicality that provided no lasting injury to anyone.

Like, does this mistake add up to anything even close to $3.1 million dollars? Can you even try to defend that decision?

I did a cut and paste of your own language that watered down the lawsuit.

she responded by walking out without a word or even a “What’s wrong with my $100 bill?”, and one can reasonably consider that suspicious behavior.

Nope. According to Target’s own brief — no the plaintiff’s brief but Target’s — she “shook her head no and walked out of the store” when asked if she had any other funds to use. I think it’s fair to say that shaking your head no is fairly well understood language. You think she should have gone shopping with a lawyer by her side so she could respond exactly as you want when hit with this surprise?

And as “to evidence of injury” — were you in the courtroom hearing the evidence?

Reilly misstates the facts of what happened. Target did not accuse Cantrell to her face of trying to pass a counterfeit. The store simply asked Cantrell if she had anything else to pay with, and she responded by walking out without a word or even a “What’s wrong with my $100 bill?”, and one can reasonably consider that suspicious behavior.

And, again, there is no evidence of injury beyond the $200 medical bill.