The McDonald’s lady required skin grafts. This woman suffered mild disappointment. There is no possible comparison between the two cases. False advertising? Yes. Refer to FTC for penalties. Harm suffered? Virtually zero. This is a frivolous lawsuit and waste of any court’s time.
It’s a class action lawsuit. It represents the rights of an entire group, even if it’s only a single person bringing forward the suit. It’s not about the harm done to a single person.
If a thief steals one dollar from a thousand people, you could say “oh, that person only lost a dollar” or you could say “that thief stole a thousand dollars”. The harm suffered to each individual was minimal, but harm was suffered, and if you add it all up, a lot of harm was done. That’s not frivolous.
Yes, I read the court filing. The only problem is that the collective value of the suffering caused by this particular false advertising would be worth about a dollar fifty. The only people who win from this kind of lawsuit are the lawyers.
I would not be making fun of this suit if it was about Hershey’s lead and cadmium problem:
I think that’s what the headline is trying to get you to say. And we had the same reaction with the McDonald’s case. But I hope we’re getting a bit wiser that when the story is spun this way it’s not too far out there to think that the corporation could have employed a media consultant to help spin this as “Americans sue over everything this case is dumb” when in reality there might be a good case under there that it’s easy to dismiss or ignore.
I suspect that’s the low hanging spin for corporations who are being held accountable. “Don’t sue us, that’s dumb! Look how dumb she’s being. Entitled! Money grab!”
I totally agree with the notion that the article is meant to illicit that thinking as well as it being false advertising, but at the same time this particular case doesn’t have quite the same impact as the McDonald’s Coffee case. Nobody is physically being harmed by the candy not having a face. What could be deeper than simply the disappointment of not seeing that little jack-o’-lantern face when you unwrap the peanut butter cup?
The way the headline is worded makes me think it’s trying to spark outrage and debate against the woman suing.
But also boy did I learn my lesson about not judging Joe Shmoe vs Corporate after learning more about the McDonald’s hot coffee case.
I’m gonna withhold judgement and see where this ends up!
The McDonald’s lady required skin grafts. This woman suffered mild disappointment. There is no possible comparison between the two cases. False advertising? Yes. Refer to FTC for penalties. Harm suffered? Virtually zero. This is a frivolous lawsuit and waste of any court’s time.
It’s a class action lawsuit. It represents the rights of an entire group, even if it’s only a single person bringing forward the suit. It’s not about the harm done to a single person.
If a thief steals one dollar from a thousand people, you could say “oh, that person only lost a dollar” or you could say “that thief stole a thousand dollars”. The harm suffered to each individual was minimal, but harm was suffered, and if you add it all up, a lot of harm was done. That’s not frivolous.
Yes, I read the court filing. The only problem is that the collective value of the suffering caused by this particular false advertising would be worth about a dollar fifty. The only people who win from this kind of lawsuit are the lawyers.
I would not be making fun of this suit if it was about Hershey’s lead and cadmium problem:
https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/2023/10/consumer-reports-urges-hersheys-to-get-heavy-metals-out-of-chocolate-products/
Once again, there was no harm suffered.
Americans will sue over everything and anything
I think that’s what the headline is trying to get you to say. And we had the same reaction with the McDonald’s case. But I hope we’re getting a bit wiser that when the story is spun this way it’s not too far out there to think that the corporation could have employed a media consultant to help spin this as “Americans sue over everything this case is dumb” when in reality there might be a good case under there that it’s easy to dismiss or ignore.
I suspect that’s the low hanging spin for corporations who are being held accountable. “Don’t sue us, that’s dumb! Look how dumb she’s being. Entitled! Money grab!”
I totally agree with the notion that the article is meant to illicit that thinking as well as it being false advertising, but at the same time this particular case doesn’t have quite the same impact as the McDonald’s Coffee case. Nobody is physically being harmed by the candy not having a face. What could be deeper than simply the disappointment of not seeing that little jack-o’-lantern face when you unwrap the peanut butter cup?
Do you want companies to follow the law or not? Why even have truth in advertising laws if no one is going to enforce them?