Since it’s worded a little weirdly in tbe title, and equally-weirdly in the article, I believe what they’re saying is…

“UHC didn’t lower their profit goals after Thompson’s murder, even though achieving those goals requires aggressive anti-consumer tactics, and they should have known that they wouldn’t be able to implement those, after the murder highlighted how anti-consumer the company is.”

So, in case it wasn’t clear, no, the plaintiff position doesn’t really give a shit about the anti-consumerism itself.