MISLEADING
Claims that Target sold "satanic" merchandise were exaggerated and misrepresented. One designer's personal brand imagery was conflated with Target products, and coordinated social media campaigns amplified false narratives. Target's Pride merchandise itself contained no satanic imagery, but the coordinated campaign successfully drove a boycott that erased $12 billion in market value.
In May 2023, a coordinated social media campaign targeted Target Corporation's Pride Month merchandise collection. Viral posts claimed the retailer was selling "satanic" products, citing one designer's personal brand aesthetic as evidence. Fact-checkers found the claims misleading: the designer's personal work was conflated with Target products, which contained no satanic symbolism. The campaign exhibited hallmarks of coordinated inauthentic behavior, with similar messaging appearing across platforms within hours. Despite factual corrections, the narrative persisted, contributing to threats against Target employees and a stock decline of over 15%. This case study illustrates how misrepresentation and viral amplification can cause real-world economic harm.
The 'Satanic' Claims: What Was Actually Said
Beginning in mid-May 2023, social media posts began circulating claiming that Target was selling "satanic Pride merchandise" designed by "a satanist" [3]. The posts specifically referenced one designer, Erik Carnell, whose brand Abprallen included some items in Target's Pride collection.
Viral posts shared images of Carnell's personal brand merchandise--which was sold on his own website, not at Target--featuring occult-inspired designs. These images were presented as if they were Target products [4].
PolitiFact investigated and rated the claim that Target sold satanic merchandise as "False", noting that the imagery circulated online was from the designer's personal collection, not products sold at Target [4].
What Target Actually Sold
Target's 2023 Pride collection included clothing, accessories, and home goods featuring rainbow colors, Pride flags, and inclusive messaging [2]. The items from Abprallen sold at Target featured designs like rainbow hearts and inclusive slogans--none contained occult or satanic imagery.
According to Target's statements and news reports, the retailer stocked items from multiple LGBTQ-owned brands for Pride Month, a practice they had maintained for over a decade [6].
The conflation occurred because Carnell's personal brand sold different products with different aesthetics on his own website. Critics took those images and falsely attributed them to Target's inventory [3].
The core of this campaign relied on showing audiences images that were never sold at Target while claiming they were. This is a common disinformation technique: using real but unrelated images to create a false impression about a target organization.
Coordinated Campaign Characteristics
Media researchers identified several hallmarks of a coordinated campaign in the anti-Target messaging [12]:
- Rapid cross-platform spread: Near-identical messaging appeared on Twitter/X, Facebook, TikTok, and conservative news sites within a 24-hour window
- Coordinated hashtags: #BoycottTarget trended simultaneously across platforms
- Influencer amplification: High-follower accounts shared the claims in coordinated bursts
- Consistent talking points: Multiple accounts used identical phrasing about "satanic" merchandise
The ADL documented how the campaign connected to broader anti-LGBTQ disinformation patterns that had previously targeted Bud Light and other corporations [11].
Real-World Impact: Threats and Economic Harm
The coordinated campaign had measurable consequences. Target reported that employees faced threats and confrontations in stores, leading the company to relocate or remove some Pride merchandise for worker safety [5].
Target's stock price fell from approximately $160 to $130 per share between mid-May and early June 2023, erasing over $12 billion in market capitalization [9]. While multiple factors affect stock prices, analysts cited the boycott controversy as a contributing factor [1].
The Washington Post reported that the campaign followed a "playbook" similar to earlier corporate boycotts, with organized social media pressure preceding mainstream coverage [8].
Fact-Checker Consensus
Multiple independent fact-checking organizations investigated the "satanic merchandise" claims:
- PolitiFact: Rated the claim "False" -- products shown were not sold at Target [4]
- Snopes: Rated claims about satanic products "Miscaptioned" -- imagery was misattributed [3]
- AP News: Confirmed products at Target featured rainbow designs, not occult imagery [2]
Despite these corrections, the false narrative continued spreading on social media and was repeated by some politicians and media figures without verification [10].
| Claim | Reality | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Target sold satanic merchandise | Images were from designer's personal site, not Target | FALSE |
| Products designed by "a satanist" | Designer's personal brand aesthetic conflated with Target products | MISLEADING |
| Target removed products due to satanic concerns | Products relocated for employee safety amid threats | MISLEADING |
| Campaign was organic consumer backlash | Exhibited coordinated inauthentic behavior patterns | MISLEADING |
Broader Pattern: Manufactured Outrage Campaigns
The Target controversy followed a pattern identified by disinformation researchers. Similar coordinated campaigns had previously targeted Bud Light, Disney, and other corporations over LGBTQ-inclusive policies [11].
NewsGuard documented how these campaigns typically begin with misrepresented or exaggerated claims, get amplified by high-follower accounts, then receive coverage from partisan media before reaching mainstream audiences [10].
The economic impact demonstrated that coordinated misinformation campaigns can have real financial consequences, even when core claims are debunked by fact-checkers [12].
Conclusion
The "Target satanic merchandise" campaign represents a case study in coordinated misinformation. Core claims were factually inaccurate: the "satanic" imagery was never sold at Target, but was misattributed from a designer's personal brand. Despite corrections from multiple fact-checkers, the narrative spread rapidly through coordinated amplification.
The real-world consequences included threats to retail workers, removal of merchandise for safety reasons, and a significant stock decline. This case illustrates how misrepresented claims, when amplified through coordinated campaigns, can cause substantial harm even after being debunked.
When evaluating viral claims about corporations, verify whether images and products are actually sold by the company in question. In this case, the most inflammatory imagery was from an independent designer's personal website--not Target's stores. Always check fact-checker consensus before sharing or acting on viral claims.