And alleges the following facts:
-a fatty diet is not the cause of obesity-inactivity is
-cholesteral ingested in eating is a tiny contributor to heart attacks, cholesterol produced by the body is a much larger factor
-McDonalds’ makes no nutritional claims about its products
-eating at McDonalds is a voluntary act; no coercion is involved
Seriously, when is the judiciary inthis country going to acquire common sense? Nobody FORCES you to eat fast food!
Now ralph124c, do you really think this ruling “lacks common sense”? The judiciary is doing what we want it to do here: apply the letter of the law. Bad on everyone for not doing their homework on the earlier decision , the checking of which is the point of having a heirarchy of courts. Not to lecture, I just don’t like the “all judges are idiots” stuff.
Yeah, I don’t see why everybody is getting all bent out of shape over the mere fact that the judge decided there was no legal reason why the case shouldn’t get a hearing.
If your brother-in-law sues you for having run over his foot and your whole family and the whole neighborhood knows the suit’s a complete pile of bullcrap because your BIL is a pathological liar and probably wasn’t even around you at the alleged time of the incident, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the judge can throw out the case.
I would also point out that the plaintiffs aren’t suing McDonalds on charges of “doing bad stuff that I was perfectly well aware of but they still shouldn’t have done it.” Rather, they’re claiming that McDonalds made specifically misleading claims in its advertising and hid information:
The allegations may be bullcrap, like your BIL’s lawsuit, but they don’t necessarily make the lawsuit frivolous: i.e., “without merit, having no legal basis, and often brought simply to harass the defendant.”
Making “specifically misleading claims in advertising and hiding information” does count, AFAICT (though IANAL) as a legal basis for a lawsuit. Just like your running over your BIL’s foot would be a legal basis for a lawsuit. The charges of wrongdoing in either case may not be true, but that’s for the jury to decide.
ralph: Nobody FORCES you to eat fast food!
Yeah, and nobody forces you to buy Firestone tires either, do they?
The point is that if a company is producing a dangerous product and not giving you all the facts about it, they are liable for damages. Now, I’m not suggesting that McDonalds really is guilty of wrongdoing in this case*: I doubt that they are. But if somebody has made a reasonably plausible and legally consistent argument that they are, I don’t see why the case shouldn’t go to trial.
*In the infamous hot coffee case, on the other hand, the company was genuiney at fault, since their product caused third-degree burns that required skin grafts; and they had previously received repeated complaints about other injuries caused by their superheated coffee, without fixing the problem. A reasonable customer may quite easily be unaware that “a hot cup of coffee” is superheated to the point of causing third-degree burns. A reasonable customer is probably not unaware, however, that fast food is fattening and unhealthy as a regular diet.
Is that right? Are cigarettes safer today than they were back in the 50’s? Did they fix all the defects in the product? No. The product is largely unchanged, what is different is the advertising.
Cigarettes are (apparently) perfectly fine and appropriate to be sold in vast quantities to the public, however when someone actually dares to use the product as designed, and gets sick, they can sue the company for damages. With this lawsuit, we are saying the same thing. McDonalds sells a product that is 100% legal and is apparently inherently dangerous enough to warrant being sued. Anyone want them to stop selling burgers, or change their recipe? What they complain about is the advertising. :rolleyes: Product defect and danger is unrelated to the way it’s advertised, period. If your argument is based on how they advertise the product (as it is in McD’s and the cigarette case) I think your defect argument falls flat.
I compare this to asbestos, which is a far more beneficial product than cigarettes and fast food burgers, but was outlawed because the users get sick. THAT is the way you handle dangerous products, not by suing the company and getting them to change the advertising.
You know, if the tobacco companies actually changed cigarettes to make them safe, and knew how to do it 50 years ago, I would feel differently about it.
Mmmhmmm. No reason why any citizen might have an interest in a rational judiciary here, oh no.
Has it occurred to you that a judicial ruling enforcing nanny-style nutritional responsibilities on every restaurant operating in the USA might just have further-reaching repercussions than maccy d’s next year-end accounts?
Sorry, double post. First time, honest guv.
I disagree. I think the foundation of a free market society is an informed consumer. If a company is knowingly misrepresenting its product, as I believe the cigarette companies did for many years, then I think they ought to be held liable for the falsely-obtained value of the product that they gained by lying.
A product ban is essentially an acknowledgement that no informed customer would possibly consider purchasing a particular product. That is clearly not the case with McDonalds, while they may still be guilty of misinforming customers about the dangers of their products. I don’t believe this is the case, however I do believe there is room for civil suits against companies who misrepresent their products, without going for the nuclear option of outright banning them.
No KIMSTU, I don’t see this at all. McDonalds is making and selling a product which is perfectly safe (if consumed in moderation). Baskin -Robbins makes a product (ice cream) which will make you fat and unhealthy if consumed in excess.
Essentially, the lawyers are arguing that “everybody in this counry is too dumb to make informed decisions”…and (unfortunately), they are right!
It’s just one more step in the direction of “Big Brother knows what is best for you”. Piss on the lawyers, piss on the judge, and piss on these brainless leeches/gluttons looking for any available target with deep pockets.
Bah. What a waste of taxpayer money.
Perhaps the plaintiffs will die of heart attacks before the case comes to trial.
No, it hasn’t occurred to him. He’s some kind of kill-fast-food-at-all-costs zealot.
You’re right, it hasn’t. Whatever changes occur, I’m sure no one outside the industry would notice. Just like no one noticed when the industry made a move (for the worse) from beef tallow to hydrogenated vegetable oil for cooking, or nobody noticed (except for those who benefited) when food companies was required to provide an updated standard of nutritional facts. Besides forcing McDonald’s to bring in better food, what can concievibly* happen to us as an outcome of this case?
*i.e. not some right-wing sci-fi fantasy
I’m currently in the process of sueing Victoria’s Secret.
They sold me this lingerie, but they never told me SEX would come out of it. I mean, come on, lingerie is just clothes. I’m sure Land’s End would NEVER have started this, they are a company that actually CARES what clothes their customers wear.
So, now i’m pregnant, and I think Victoria’s Secret is responsible; I mean, they never told me these clothes would get me pregnant, and I sure as heck didn’t get pregnant with OTHER underwear.
Naaaah I don’t have any self control, I just wander around and follow corporations.
(FTR, I eat at McDonalds too… its about moderation, rather than saturation. of fat.)
Then he’s full of crap:
Parfait fat grams: 2
Sundae: 6-9 (+ peanuts)
Parfait Sugar: 21
Sundae: 43-48.
Is this the kind of “information” this movie gives out?
Incidently, some claim that the nutrition charts only went up as a result of the threatened lawsuits. Bullshit. Those charts have been up since at least the early 90’s.
Total tangent to this thread, but cigs with various sugar contents were tested to see which was the most addictive. Of course, the most addictive blend was the one that was used.
Carry on.
I’ll join you in a class action suit, my brother! Well, against A&F, since I don’t have a dog.
Og forbid somebody should care about these insane lawsuits and their detrimental effects on society.
And that’s the point. These cases need to be thrown out, and the people bringing them ridiculed and socked in the wallet for wasting the court’s time. Even defending against these “non suits” costs money. I’m no fan of Mcdonalds, but they shouldn’t pay a thin dime in this case. Time, and money wasted on some gold digging fool, that’s why we’re angry.
Common sense requires throwing this out within 30 seconds. What could there possibly be to debate?
This is ridiculous. I can just imagine every fast food chain commercial I see from now on having those half-invisible letters running on the bottom of the screen proclaiming how stockpiling junk food in your body can lead you to die in about 1000 different ways. If this is somehow knowledge that is evading someone they must be blind, deaf, and partially mentally handicapped.
As far as I know, no one disputes the numbers Spurlock gave in his film. Most (factual) criticism comes from the atypicalness of the results of his sudden lifestyle change. The movie is really a “scared skinny” type thing.
It’s quite simple: junk food (and unhealthy gourmet food) that plenty of us enjoy and can consume quite safely thankyouverymuch will become much more expensive, in order to cope with the cost of lawsuits by morons, or simply become unavailable. This will not be restricted to McDonald’s, since all restaurants serving unhealthy food will be liable to similar suits.
I would rather this didn’t happen, since a) the morons don’t deserve the money, and b) I am not rich, and would like to continue to be able to afford the food I occasionally enjoy.
Maybe you think making restaurants financially liable for the dietary choices of their customers really is a small change, akin to a change in cooking oil or the cost of a nutritional data sheet. This simply doesn’t jibe with reality, I’m afraid. Still, having been reminded of your legendary death-spike thread, I can’t say I’m surprised.