I know that the debate on this topic raged for pages, so I thought I’d update in a new thread. According to this article on CNN, the first of the lawsuits against McDonald’s for selling food that makes people fat has been tossed out.
From the judge’s opinion:
Although the general concensus appeared to be that it would be tossed, I, for one, am relieved.
Any thoughts? I’m assuming that the second suit filed by Ceasar Barger against McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger King will see the same demise. We can only hope.
It’s always refreshing to see a frivolous lawsuit thrown out.
Although, it does cause me some concern for my plans to sue Brachs, Fanny May, et al for the presence of chocolate in so many of their candies. Why didn’t they tell us?!?
I know you weren’t advancing any sort of position with this statement, and please don’t take this as me jumping on you, but despite what you hear in the media, throwing out frivolous lawsuits really is the rule rather than the exception.
Just to clarify for the non-lawyers among us: the judge through the case out on a 12(b)(6) motion because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It’s not the case that the plaintiff simply didn’t dot some i’s or cross some t’s. Plaintiffs can replead, but they have to state a new claim.
You don’t really think this is the end do you? It took years of court cases to finally achieve victory against the tobacco companies. In 10-20 years we might see a similar victory against food providers.
I don’t see how, unless prosecutors are able to prove that McDonalds, et al willfully and knowingly made their products addictive. I think there’s a demonstrable difference between an addictive drug added/increased to a product known to be harmful even in moderation, and plain old’ tastiness in a product not known to be harmful in moderation.
One thing that struck me about the decision was that the judge knew the case was in the spotlight and took the opportunity to hot-dog it. No way was a 64-page decision necessary here.
Damn! I was hoping for some fun! I thought that “Rev” Al Sharpton would eventually stick his nose into this one…that would have been worth a TON of Laughs!
I know the smiley indicates that you said this in jest, but if you’ve read that opinion it’s clear that you might be closer to the truth than you even intended! The opinion is chock-full of unnecessary and “glitzy” phrases such as “McLawsuit” and “McFrankenstein” (referrring to the concoctions known as chicken mcnuggets), has a lengthy dissertation on the effects of obesity on America’s youth (largely without any reference to source material), and contains lengthy discussions of how the plaintiffs might be able to amend their complaints to get past another 12b(6) motion; much (if not almost all) of this is really unnecessary and serves only to make the opinion more fun to read. Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that, mind you…
I liked the part of the opinion where the judge says that nobody is forced to go to McDonalds, except maybe the parents of small children lured by the food, the toys, and the playground who assail their parents until they give in and go to Ronald’s Diner for dinner!
I personally don’t think this case is over and I fully expect the plaintiffs will file an amended complaint more particularly alleging some of the things this judge indicated were already “close” calls (such as the lack of common knowledge concerning the actual contents of some of the products – like the McFrankenstein Nuggets – etc.) Whether it will survive another 12b(6) motion or not is a whole 'nother question, but I doubt these people are going away anytime soon.
Anyone else want to bet that if they do win, the first thing they will do is take their winnings and straight into the nearest McDonalds for a couple Big Macs to celebrate?
The unfairness against McCrap and other in this is that do people who eat a large amount junk food buy healthy green organic stuff from the supermarket? No. Most probably, they stock up on sugary, fatty, salty snack things. (Not having a go at the average hamburger eater, but these serial McCrap stuffers).
So how will you prove in 20 years time which food provider is to blame? What percentage of fat in the litigant’s liver derives from cow-fed-cow fatty offal, and what from twinkies and fried cheese sandwiches?
And what about those that never go to McCrap but eat a diet solely of chips, fried food, chocolate and coke? And still end up diabetic, morbidly obese, etc - do they start suing United Biscuits?
If McCrap puts full ingredient lists on their products, will that be an adequate disclaimer? Is a cake-maker dishonest for putting a healthy, smiling person on their packaging, because if all you ever ate was cake you would end up rotten-toothed, fat and scurvied?
The onus of healthy eating does not lie with food companies. It lies with the individual consumer (or their parents/guardians). Foot companies - factories and restaurants - owe us hygienic products with a full ingredient list. They do not owe us 24/7 advice on the values of lettuce.
Excellent point! Any future court ruling needs to mandate that McDonalds, Burger King, etc. start placing “markers” in their “food” so the courts can later determine exactly where the offending flab came from.
istara and Threadkiller have just given me the idea that will make me famous. I’ll sue the fast food industry for a medical monitoring class action. We know that too much fast food and too little activity makes people fat, so we’ll make the industry pay to monitor their consumers and provide medical services if they start getting too chubby.
I’m sure you’re right. It’s just that too often I’ve read about these cases being settled out of court. It’s good to actually read about one that’s been thrown out rather than just the few that aren’t.
