Please, please, please, before going ballistic over paternalistic judges determining what we can and can’t eat, read the damned story and understand it. The only cause of action the appeals panel revived was one for deceptive advertising. Presumably they don’t give a rat’s ass if McDonald’s is selling nothing but deep-fried lard or if people are fat from eating it.
I haven’t read the complaint, but it seems from the news reports that the plaintiffs are claiming that McDonalds made specific claims about their products which were untrue, and consumers were injured as a result of being misled.
Also, keep in mind that the general inclination among jurists is to keep the courts open as much as possible, and to bring questions of fact before juries, rather than shutting down suits before trial. It may result in some inefficiencies, but it is an important part of keeping things as fair as possible.
Now, personally I suspect that McDonald’s is only “guilty” of accentuating the good features of their products, while failing to mention the drawbacks. And I don’t think that rises to the level of deceptive advertising.
But I also think that McDonalds and other companies should be restricted in advertising directly to children. Generally I’m a free speech advocate, but I’m pretty comfortable putting limits on corporations using precisely developed psychological techniques to manipulate minors who are incapable of critical thinking. (And yes, I also think the parents need to stop taking them to McDonald’s, but I think that’s a separate issue.)
We’re aware of the difference, but the end result is the same. “Deceptive” advertising almost implies that they tricked people into eating there. The solution is the same, let their hearts explode and get them the fuck out of the gene pool. If you think that shit is healty to eat 24/7, you are simply stupid to live.
Bullshit, that’s scumbag lawyer spin. They probably attempted to extrapolate some super literal interpretation from a vague ambigious Mcdonalds ad.
Jurors are morons. There should be a law that settlements they dole out are automatically reduced by $100 million.
So do you propose appointing some “elder judge” to use common sense before applying law to legal decisions? Perhaps all judges should be required to take a “common sense” exam before getting on the bench? How do we rid ourselves of this plague of inefficacy?
Personally I’m all for tightening up truth in advertising. We are far too blase about lying and bullshit nowadays.
Exactly! Their commercials should feature the type of people who actually consume their products, not the fit & fashionable. That’s the part that’s a big lie, and they damn well know it.
The other hypocrisy, and there’s no way on earth to change this but it pisses me off anyway, is that the people who earn a living from the sale of those products don’t themselves consume them! I can tell you this for a fact. I used to work for Coca-Cola on the Burger King account, and the last thing any of my bosses or their franchisee customers would do is actually eat a Whopper or a Coke. Maybe a diet Coke, but it was usually water water water. And they avoided Burger King restaurants like the plague - when they had to buy food there for some campaign or another (or to prove they’d been out in the field doing their jobs) they just threw it away.
They didn’t need to, they just cut the lawsuit off at the pass.
Sure there are cases where that would apply, but don’t you agree there are cases so inane that they’re thrown out on the spot? This isn’t buying a car or entering into some deal crazy business deal where you get stung later, this is a simple matter. The case was so retarded that the judge didn’t even need to waste time coming up with a legal technical reason.
If you could see these smug SOBs and the way they look down their noses at their own customers, you’d be a lot more interested in finding ways to hold them accountable for their advertising lies. If their advertising wasn’t deliberately, consistently and thoroughly deceptive, then I’d sing the caveat emptor chorus along with you.
It’s specifically because advertising is deliberately, consistently, and thoroughly deceptive that the consumer should strive to be as knowledgable about a product as possible. Doubly so when it’s products that go in their body. I’m not excusing sneaky adverts, or the companies at all, fuck 'em all, but the best defense is an educated consumer.
I’d like to see some control as well, but any solution I can think of will cause more harm then good. As far as looking down their noses, every single person I know looks down at their customers in one way or another. It’s hardly unique to the fast food industry.
As we all know, the higher you are in a corporate environment, the more evil you are. It goes without saying.
The lawsuit is complete bullshit, but it needs to be shot down in a court in front of a jury because that’s the way the (dumb) system works.
And if we’re going to hit McD’s for showing fit people eating a meal, every beer commercial must go. Either that, or I want hot women fawning over me for my choice of beer. I have never seen a McD’s ad that was deceptive. Just because your Maserati does 185 doesn’t mean it is their fault when you slam into the bridge at that speed.
I will agree with AerynSun that companies that continuously and agressively market to children need some brakes put on them, but that the greater onus lies with the parents.
Hence the [sub]closed course - don’t try this at home[/sub] on the bottom of the screen. Personally I think if you believe a commercial where someone runs into a wall at 185 mph and survives, you should go do it and remove yourself the genepool. You simply can’t legislate against that type of stupidity.
Which is why every car commercial that shows a car going down a windy road says “professional driver on a closed road”. Of course, you won’t see that warning when the big-bad SUV is tooling down an unplowed snow laden street, but that’s another rant entirely.
I could go and eat one right now and I wouldn’t get any fatter. I’m not going to, as I can’t stand McD’s or BK’s. I love my Popeye’s, however, I limit myself to once every other month, because I have a brain.
Does the fact that I don’t like McD’s mean that when the corporate office calls and asks me to be their CFO, I have to turn it down?
