I’m kidding (the title is exaggeration) but I’m curious if they’re technically in trouble.
There’s a local non-chain burger place (sit-down restaurant with a drive-thru) that’s been here as long as I’ve lived here for 30 years. They used to serve Coca-Cola, but then at some point switched to RC Cola 10 years ago, but suddenly last year now they just serve generic Cola. I know this because inside the soda dispenser machine no longer has any real logos on it, instead of saying Coke, Diet Cola, or RC like it used to it literally has generic logos for “Cola, Diet Cola, Lemon-Lime Soda” and others like it’s a Wal-Mart generic brand. It definitely also tastes generic like store brand Cola to my taste.
The problem is, in the drive through they still have the Coca-Cola logo and other pictures on the drive-thru making it seem like they serve official Coke brand products, and I always still ask for an “RC Cola” at the drive through and they don’t correct me and I even asked “Do you still serve RC Cola” at the speaker and they still said Yes despite when I tasted it it’s clearly not RC anymore.
Aren’t there any laws in your jurisdiction that cover this? In the UK, this is covered by Trading Standards legislation, and companies can be fined (or more) for misleading advertising. Here, you could, if you so desired and had excess time on your hands, report the company to your local Trading Standards team.
Are we talking about those branded menu boards Pepsi and Coke used to give out to mom & pop restaurants like 30-40 years ago? At this point those could probably just be considered part of the furniture, like those posters at the barbershop of African-American men with early '90s hairstyles, or the faded old Kronos poster in a place that sells gyros.
It’s possible that by alerting the Coca-Cola Company or the government, that the penalties include closure of the restaurant. Do you want that? If not, just be satisfied that you know that they are not serving real Coke or RC Cola.
I think this wrongly casts the restaurant as a victim. They are knowingly deceiving their customers about the products they are receiving. I just don’t think false advertising is okay, and do think businesses that do so should be made to stop and pay a penalty, else wise they have absolutely no incentive not to continue in the activity. (and other business no incentive to not start advertising falsely themselves). And, before it’s asked, no, I emphatically don’t think small businesses should get a pass to behave unethically just because they are small.
@Asuka: Do you live in the part of the country where the word “coke” is commonly used to mean “soft drink?” Where people commonly say confusing things like get me a “lemon lime coke” when they mean a “clear lemon lime fizzy soda” like Mountain Dew or 7-Up or whatever else still exists in that genre? If you do live in that part of the country, those plain words just mean “we have sugary soda and diet soda”.
Now if you live elsewhere or they have the Coca Cola logo, swoop, or other trade dress, well then yeah, that’s wrong. And a violation of both truth in advertising and something the Coca Cola Company would be glad to enforce for you.
@SanVito: Yes, there are such laws. Certainly federal and some states too. And there are agencies charged with enforcing those laws.
Which agencies have, even pre- the current craziness, almost no funding or staffing compared to the size of the problem they’re supposed to police. As such, they care deeply about gigantic ripoffs affecting millions of customers and care not a whit for a single random hamburger stand. Leaving that tier of US commerce utterly unpoliced.
Which is why the USA is the land of the class-action law suit. The government has, in effect, outsourced the enforcement of law to the tort plaintiff’s bar. And has since about the time when Reagan first declared holy war on the regulatory apparatus of the government he was sworn to lead to good deeds.
That seems ridiculously over the top. If the OP did succeed in attracting the attention of the authorities or Coca Cola Inc, they’d receive a nasty letter telling them to stop. A little duct tape over the misleading parts of their signs and everybody’d be happy again.
Furthermore, as noted by @Tzigone, that attitude is simply encouraging bad behavior.
Hell by that logic if the business is hanging by a thread financially, it becomes the OP’s very duty to eat there 5x/week to ensure they stay open. Where do the consequences of actions stop?
No one is going to jail for this and the restaurant won’t be closed down. Worst case is that the local Coca-Cola bottler confirms they aren’t buying syrup from them and sends a cease and desist letter.
This is apparently something that concerns you enough to post on a message board.
If I had this level of concern I would either speak to the management of the establishment personally or write them a letter explaining their oversight with the brand name.
What do you think of paid Pinkertons? Would the math change for you if the folks at Coca-Cola make it their policy to send a ‘thank-you’ check when a tipster relays such info?
This is it. It’s not even clear what kind of damages Coca Cola has sustained in this case. The consumer has more of a claim under advertising regulations than Coca Cola has.
Googling, Coca-Cola Company v. Foods, Inc., 220 F. Supp. 101 (D.S.D. 1963) was a 1963 legal case in which the Coca-Cola Company sued The Plains Lounge of Huron, South Dakota. From the citation, “The evidence shows that from October 12, 1960, through December 10, 1962, the defendant, The Plains, substituted another beverage in response to orders for plaintiff’s registered trademark product, ‘Coke’ or ‘Coca-Cola’, 25 times without informing the purchaser of such substitutions.”
