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?
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.
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.
I’m not seeing where anyone said otherwise.
And it had a hair in it!
IANAP…The Banks decision 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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??
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.
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.
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 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.
Who said that’s what the situation was?
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.
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:
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.
Amen, hallelujah!
