Do you believe advertising claims? Most folks don't, or at least discount the claim somewhat.

Target sued K-Mart in U.S. District Court in Minnesota today claiming that K-Mart misrepresented Target prices when advertising the differences between the two chains. Target allegedly notified K-Mart of its displeasure, but filed today when no action had been taken.

The Street responded by knocking Target's share price down 3% since lawsuits are never inexpensive. K-Mart was also down slightly.

Here's the rub -- do you really believe a company when it tells you what another's company's prices are or do you check for yourself?

There were so many options available to Target: regulatory complaints, action before the NAD (National Advertising Division) of the BBB, a PR campaign. Why litigation over something that I think most folks discount whenever they see it?

I never assume that advertisements are telling me the truth, especially about competitors and their prices! I always check prices for myself. I have to agree - a lawsuit seems nuts to me.

My guess is that it happens over and over and over and they got tired of it. Almost never would a lawsuit be filed over one incident.

Agreed, Michael. But litigating the matter is a hideously expensive matter. So they get some dollars if they win. Anything else they gain could have been done with a well-waged PR campaign.

It is not as expensive as you think. Let's say $3 million. That is NOTHING compared to the FUD value they want to get out of it.

Note also that KMart is down 3.75 percent as well. Also note that these claims are covered by insurance, so likely will recover something in settlement.

Here is the story:

http://biz.yahoo.com/apf/010821/target_k...uit_2.html

On these facts, I would recommend bringing suit in a minute.

Of course, I bring and defend these types of suits for a living.

In St. Louis, Shop n Save always used to compare a sample market basket with Schnucks and Dierbergs prices for the same items. Shop n Save was consistently about 15% less.

No one ever complained, but no one goes to Schnucks and Dierberg's for the prices. Their prices are fairly high, but the ambience of the stores, the customer service, and the quality of merchandise are excellent. I used to call them the "boutique supermarkets."

They also were one of the few supermarket chains left in the United States that still has many full-time grocery employees, with full benefits. Is it worth it to pay a little more for groceries to stores that respect and value their employees and pay them living wages?

My father-in-law's second wife had worked in the meat-wrapping industry many years. She started full-time, right after high school. She was making a great salary and benefits. The supermarket (in NY) that she worked for tried everything to get her to quit. They'd send her to inconvenient locations, transfer her every three months, etc. They wanted to replace all their full-timers with part-timers.

Eventually she retired in her early 50's along with my father-in-law. They moved to Florida. She froze her pension, because she'd just had it.

When I see stores like Dierberg's and Schnuck's I have to respect them. They are vestiges of a kindler, gentler America.

Go get 'em Target!

The Big K has been trying so hard to be Target.

And anything with the evil Martha attached to them has simply got to be brought down to size!

To answer the specific question -- I am a huge price naggling whiner who returns to Target to get credited for items purchased prior to a sale. I can't even get a person to come to the help desk at K-mart. I have never had a problem with Target.

Remember Rainman?

Kmart sucks.

Target prices don't hold a candle to Wal-Mart prices around here. K-Mart is definitely in third place... although they do offer to meet any advertised price, who needs that kind of hassle?

Kat