Research Question: The U. S. dairy industry saw a significant drop in milk production after the 1970s, losing more than half of its licensed dairy operations since 2003 (Farm Bureau 2021). Farmers lose approximately $.60 in revenue per gallon (McCausland, 2018). Wisconsin, America's Dairyland, has lost 20% of its dairy farms in the last five years (Barrett 2018). This shift has significant consequences for supply chain members, particularly dairy farmers, and many rural economies as farmers continue to go out of business, but is there a negative impact on consumers as well? There has also been an increase in dairy products labeling, including "No Antibiotics," "Antibiotic Free," "Tested for Antibiotics," and "rBST-free." Consumers may interpret these differently: that some milk contains antibiotics, only some milk is tested for antibiotics, or that milk containing antibiotics and rBST is unfavorable and products without them are superior. However, while these labels are technically accurate, such labels can be deceiving since all milk currently sold in U.S. grocery stores is tested for and free from antibiotics. Is misleading labeling a cause of the significant decline in milk demand and shift to controversial "milk" alternatives? Are there unfavorable outcomes when purchases are influenced by such misleading labels? Method and Data: We explore the unintended consequences of legislation designed to protect consumers. Across two studies, we examine a situation that breeds information asymmetry, misinformation, and creates a significant burden to producers (e.g., rBST voluntary labeling). With marketplace practices outpacing regulatory intent, consumers who rely on product labels to inform their choices may be unknowingly vulnerable. Importantly, we use a multimethod approach to examine the effects of antibiotic-free milk labeling from the perspectives of both consumers (Study 1) and dairy farmers (Study 2). Study 1 was designed through Qualtrics and delivered to Amazon Turk participants via CloudResearch; survey data was analyzed via SPSS. Study 1 included a 2 [Objective Knowledge: high or low] x 4 [Label: antibiotic-free, rBST-free, a fictional label (e.g., eLE-free), control (no label)] between-subjects design. DVs included subjective and objective knowledge, purchase intent, and perceived vulnerability. Study 2 was a qualitative study; we conducted phone interviews using a convenience sample of 11 dairy farmers located in the Midwest. Participants were asked about consumer misperceptions regarding product labeling (e.g., the meaningless "antibiotic-free" labels), their perceptions about current regulatory policy pertaining to the dairy industry, and suggestions they have for addressing consumer misperceptions. This text data was analyzed via Diction 7.0. Summary of Findings: In Study 1, we found a significant discrepancy between consumers' subjective and objective knowledge; nearly 62% of participants answered 2 or fewer questions correctly (out of 10). This discrepancy and consumer involvement explained most of our relationships. Consumers also expressed a need for clarity in differentiating between dairy- and plant-based alternatives. We used hierarchical cluster analysis to find four unique combinations of consumer variables that predicted purchase intent and choosing between dairy- and plantbased alternatives. Unbothered Haters were uninvolved, had negative perceptions, and would not buy the stimuli. Their choice was easy; they knew that they had poor knowledge and did not feel more vulnerable than others. Uninformed Buyers were involved, had positive perceptions, and would buy the stimuli. Their choice was difficult; they thought they were knowledgeable but felt more vulnerable. Smart Buyers were involved, had positive perceptions, and would buy the stimuli. Their choice was easy; they knew that they were knowledgeable and did not feel vulnerable. Vulnerable Haters were uninvolved, had negative perceptions, and would not buy the stimuli. Their choice was easy; they underestimated their knowledge but felt vulnerable. In Study 2, we found that the dairy farmers were uncertain, emphasized risk, and used abstract language. Key Contributions: This research improves our understanding of the consequences of consumer vulnerability in the presence of information asymmetry, which occurs when consumers are unable to determine the quality of a product before they buy it (Mishra et al 1998). When it is present, consumers are more susceptible to opportunism by another party distorting product features or quality. The result, confusion, is a failure to correctly interpret various facets of a product or service during information processing, which leads to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the market (Chen and Chang 2013). Three primary sources lead to consumer confusion: product similarity, choice abundance, and information ambiguity (which results from unclear, misleading, or inadequate information in marketing communications; Mitchell and Papavassiliou 1999). All three are present in the dairy aisle; many products carry similar, misleading claims. As a result, consumers may interpret certain labels differently. Additionally, responses from dairy farmers highlight production-related consequences to "antibiotic-free" labeling as well. Across two studies, we examine a situation that breeds information asymmetry, misinformation, and creates a significant burden to producers (e.g., rBST voluntary labeling) and uninformed shoppers. With marketplace practices outpacing regulatory intent, consumers who rely on product labels to inform their choices may be unknowingly vulnerable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]