Transition to only cage-free shell eggs by 2025, pending available supply.
While in their 2025 report linked above (this), and in their website , it’s framed as a goal rather than a commitment:
Eggs: In 2016, Target set a goal to transition to a 100% cage-free egg supply chain by 2025 pending available supply.
I’m curious about the legality of this. Did they initially frame it as a commitment? Assuming their argument about unavailable (cheap) supply doesn’t hold, are they legally bound to uphold their commitment?
Many commitments are not legally binding—generally, you can say that you’re going to do something and then change your mind without any sort of legal penalty. Any other rule would lead to even more litigation than we already have. What would the theory be for Target’s promises in 2016 being binding?
The document I saw doesn’t look like a contract—I don’t see any evidence of a counterparty who provided consideration in exchange for Target’s promises. There are circumstances in which a contract-like claim will lie despite the absence of an actual contract (e.g., various forms of estoppel). But courts are hesitant to apply those circumstances broadly. Among other things, we’d usually be looking for a litigant who reasonably relied on a clear and definite promise to their detriment and suffered a clear-cut injury as a result. The potential injuries here strike me as less than clear-cut, and the promise as less than clear. Available is vague to my ears, rather than clear and definite.
From Chicken Watch, we find Target’s 2016′s commitment. There, it’s stated that
While in their 2025 report linked above (this), and in their website , it’s framed as a goal rather than a commitment:
I’m curious about the legality of this. Did they initially frame it as a commitment? Assuming their argument about unavailable (cheap) supply doesn’t hold, are they legally bound to uphold their commitment?
Many commitments are not legally binding—generally, you can say that you’re going to do something and then change your mind without any sort of legal penalty. Any other rule would lead to even more litigation than we already have. What would the theory be for Target’s promises in 2016 being binding?
The document I saw doesn’t look like a contract—I don’t see any evidence of a counterparty who provided consideration in exchange for Target’s promises. There are circumstances in which a contract-like claim will lie despite the absence of an actual contract (e.g., various forms of estoppel). But courts are hesitant to apply those circumstances broadly. Among other things, we’d usually be looking for a litigant who reasonably relied on a clear and definite promise to their detriment and suffered a clear-cut injury as a result. The potential injuries here strike me as less than clear-cut, and the promise as less than clear. Available is vague to my ears, rather than clear and definite.
Thanks! This really clarifies the situation for me.