# Judge Allows Obesity Suit Against McDonalds? WTF?? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 26, 2005, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753 "2005-01-26T13:51:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/21 "2005-01-26T19:19:54Z")
> [@](#): > > _Cheesesteak said:_ > They offer plain eggs, pancakes, english muffins and biscuts for breakfast. You have a variety of salads, with and without grilled chicken, lowfat dressing. Grilled chicken sandwiches, which are very lean when you ask for no mayo. Plain burgers which are pretty lean in comparison to sauce laden burgers. Fruit and yogurt parfait, with and without granola. Orange juice, apple juice, lowfat milk, unsweetened iced tea, coffee and diet sodas. > > Can’t find anything healthy at McDonalds? You’re not looking at their menu. > > Can I sue my local supermarket because I only buy potato chips and frozen pizza, turning myself into Jabba the Hut? So you say, and I’m sure so does McD’s. Now they’ll have to say it in court I guess. We should remember though that low fat alternatives != fulfilling nutrional needs. I’m curious though, is this automatically a frivolous lawsuit - a case of buyer beware? If McD’s did not offer the healthier alternatives you listed and promoted themselves as a place you could eat everyday- could the suit have merit? ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/22 "2005-01-26T19:48:22Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > Once they have a fat settlement / winning under their belts, the greedy scumbag lawyers will leverage every cent out of everyone mentioned above. And luckily for them, the recent IRS v Banks decision was already made moot with the help of their amen corner in Congress. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/23 "2005-01-26T19:56:09Z")
> [@JohnBckWLD](#): > > And luckily for them, the recent IRS v Banks decision was already made moot with the help of their amen corner in Congress. I don’t believe I’m familiar with that. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/24 "2005-01-26T19:56:11Z")
This is a minor nitpick, but I was under the impression that _Super Size Me_ was not a Michael Moore film, since it was written and directed by [Morgan Spurlock](http://imdb.com/title/tt0390521/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxzZz0xfGxtPTIwMHx0dD1vbnxwbj0wfHE9c3VwZXIgc2l6ZSBtZXxodG1sPTF8bm09b24_;fc=1;ft=20). ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/25 "2005-01-26T20:05:42Z")
I’m not seeing where anyone said otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Dung\_Beetle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dung_beetle/32/7945_2.png) [@Dung\_Beetle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dung_Beetle)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/26 "2005-01-26T20:06:25Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > According to that movie, the parfaits are just as fat and sugar laden as the sundaes. And it had a _hair_ in it! ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/27 "2005-01-26T20:10:19Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > I don’t believe I’m familiar with that. IANAP…[The Banks decision](http://www.brocktonmass.org/news/publish/000187.shtml) just came down a couple days ago. It’s moot because Congress had already passed legislation that exempted personal injury awards. If understand the tax implications of the decision correctly, its only impact is on plaintiffs awarded $ in defamation and civil rights cases. ---
**Author:** ![Talon\_Karrde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Talon\_Karrde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Talon_Karrde)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/28 "2005-01-26T20:11:11Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Of course, no regular restaurants are required to analyze and provide the nutritional values of their food. Most restaurants would be completely unable to do the analysis in the first place. > > I am very sick and tired of products deemed unsafe via lawsuit in industries that are tightly regulated where the product is sold within all government guidelines for safety and quality of product. I’m looking at YOU cigarette lawsuits, you started this nonsense, and here we are. > > If their food is unsafe, the FDA needs to step in and shut their operation down. This is a good point. Shouldn’t these people be suing the government, not McDonalds? Perhaps the reasoning could go that the FDA should require more information about the food. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/29 "2005-01-26T20:12:01Z")
Sorry, I thought someone had said it was a documentary that made Michael Moore look credible, as if he had done that film. I suppose I misunderstood. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/30 "2005-01-26T20:19:45Z")
I think this is a meritless suit regardless of the fact that McD offers some healthier alternatives to the Big Mac. I consider it a personal responsibility to choose foods that are nutritionally sound. It is the restaurant’s responsibility to prepare foods that are safe to eat (e.g. fully cooked, no dangerous microbes) and made with acceptable quality ingredients. If these foods are inherently too dangerous to consume, when properly prepared, they should be banned, just as the government banned lead paint, asbestos and mercury thermometers. ---
**Author:** ![pizzabrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9c0ed/32.png) [@pizzabrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pizzabrat)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/31 "2005-01-26T20:31:05Z")
Ha ha. McDonald’s is in trouble, and it’s making indignant blowhards with no real dog in the fight all maaad! Seriously, McDonald’s has its own lawyers - they don’t need you. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/32 "2005-01-26T20:35:50Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Judge Allows Obesity Suit Against McDonalds? WTF?? So you think the judge should not have allowed the case? So you’re firmly in favor of activist judges? You can’t have it both ways. Either you want judges to be fair and impartial who allow the judicial system to do its job, or you don’t. Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![5que](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/3bc359/32.png) [@5que](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5que)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/33 "2005-01-26T20:47:41Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > I can see it if the ads are deceptive, or if the listed nutritional information is fraudulent, then there might be some basis for a suit. When Burger King started posting the nutritional info in their restaurants a few years ago, the small print said that the values for the Whopper, etc. were _without_ mayo. I considered that pretty fraudulent, considering leaving out mayo would make a significant difference in the fat count, and why wouldn’t you list the information for the food item as normally prepared?? ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/34 "2005-01-26T20:48:11Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > So you think the judge should not have allowed the case? So you’re firmly in favor of activist judges? > > You can’t have it both ways. Either you want judges to be fair and impartial who allow the judicial system to do its job, or you don’t. Which is it? IMO there’s a difference between allowing a case and activism. No, I don’t favor judges with an agenda-I want judges with common sense, and that common sense extends to the degree of judging a case from the stench it exudes, and tossing in the trash where it belongs. Somewhere along the line, society has progressed (or digressed) to the notion that anything which goes wrong, makes me uncomfortable, or is otherwise bothersome should result in someone handing me a box o’ money. This mindset, those juries that have supported it, and the lawyers that have furthered it all need to be cast into the outer darkness as an example to the remaining. If you’re obese from eating at Mickey D’s, sue your fingers for shoving the slop into your corpulent gub, and then sue your feet and legs for not running a few miles. Were I on the jury, I’d award Ronald taking a McDump on your Happy Meal. ---
**Author:** ![audiobottle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc8723/32.png) [@audiobottle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/audiobottle)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/35 "2005-01-26T20:50:16Z")
It seems to me that any restaurant, regardless of what they sell, is going to want you to eat there as much as possible. It’s how they make money. Just like a candy maker wants you to eat as much candy as possible, or a car manufacturer wants you to buy as many cars as possible… what’s the problem with that? Like others have said, people should be responsible for holding themselves back. If it’s a case of people just not knowing that McD’s or any other fast food place (or really, most restaurants) aren’t as healthy as cooking something yourself, that’s hardly the restaurant’s fault. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/36 "2005-01-26T20:57:29Z")
Personally I think the case has merit. For a similar reason, I have just filed a $40 billion lawsuit against _Abercrombie & Fitch_ who by employing [slim and muscular young male models](http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/m/o/mol104/AandF.jpg) in their extremely popular commercials have brainwashed the American public into thinking that this look is inherently sexier and more desirable than that of over-35 lovehandled Americans and thereby causing me extreme emotional harm and duress not to mention millions in lost wages as a male model and escort. Then I’m going to go after Ralston Purina because whenever my dog eats their product he has a bowel movement later, causing me to have to leave work and walk him each day. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/37 "2005-01-26T21:12:09Z")
> [@audiobottle](#): > > If it’s a case of people just not knowing that McD’s or any other fast food place (or really, most restaurants) aren’t as healthy as cooking something yourself, that’s hardly the restaurant’s fault. Who said that’s what the situation was? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/38 "2005-01-26T22:02:27Z")
> [@](#): > > _Cheesesteak said:_ > I think this is a meritless suit regardless of the fact that McD offers some healthier alternatives to the Big Mac. I consider it a personal responsibility to choose foods that are nutritionally sound. Fair enough, I understand some hold strongly to the “buyer beware” principle. Part of the issue before the court (IMHO) is whether McD’s is implying they ARE nutrionally sound as you could eat every meal there and hopefully every day if McD’s had their way. 🙂 Personally, I think there is some line that McD’s could cross but I doubt it will be shown to be the case here. It’s also true that plaintiffs have a duty to try to mitigate their losses as much as possible- how fat did they get before they said no more McD’s? But I guess that’s all for the courts to decide. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/39 "2005-01-26T22:28:49Z")
**Cheesesteak:** \*I am very sick and tired of products deemed unsafe via lawsuit in industries that are tightly regulated where the product is sold within all government guidelines for safety and quality of product. I’m looking at YOU cigarette lawsuits, you started this nonsense, and here we are. \* How do you figure that the tobacco lawsuits are comparable? The whole point of those lawsuits is that the cigarette companies **WEREN’T** abiding by the law when it came to the safety, or lack thereof, of their product. In fact, the companies are being sued for [fraud and conspiracy](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec04/tobacco_9-20.html): > [@](#): > > The government’s case says that the six defendants (the tobacco companies) committed fraud starting in 1953, when the companies allegedly met in the Plaza Hotel in New York City and agreed to launch a public relations campaign to mislead the public. > > The campaign’s alleged goal was to counter the mounting scientific evidence that smoking had serious health consequences, despite the tobacco companies’ research that proved otherwise. > > The Justice Department specifically alleges that the tobacco companies decided not to compete against each other on health claims, misled the public on the health dangers of second hand smoke, manipulated nicotine levels, misled the public to believe light cigarettes are less dangerous, and targeted youth in their marketing and promotion campaigns. In other words, the grounds of the suit are that the companies had private knowledge of the dangers and negative effects of their product, and deliberately sought to conceal that knowledge from the public. (Remember, this is starting back in 1953, way before there were government-mandated health warnings on cigarette packages.) In other words, that they conspired to mislead the public about serious risks to their health. Whatever the merits of this argument, it is certainly not the same as crybaby consumers having full knowledge of all safety hazards, knowingly choosing to buy the unsafe product anyway, and then deciding retroactively that they should have been protected from themselves. If consumers know all the risks, then they’re fully responsible for their own choices. But a company has no business flat-out hiding from its consumers conclusive evidence that its product can kill them. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753/40 "2005-01-26T22:29:47Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > I don’t see a claim at all. Anyone misguided enough to think eating that crap 24/7 is healthy should fall victim to Darwin. Amen, hallelujah! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-allows-obesity-suit-against-mcdonalds-wtf/286753.md?page=3)