1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Judge Throws Out McDonald's Obesity Case -- AGAIN!

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by MadMax, Sep 4, 2003.

  1. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=3390061
    Judge Throws Out Obesity Suit Against McDonalds
    Thu September 4, 2003 04:07 PM ET


    By Gail Appleson
    NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Thursday threw out a revised lawsuit against McDonald's Corp . that accused the fast food restaurant of using misleading advertising to lure children into eating unhealthy foods that make them fat.

    U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet had previously dismissed the plaintiffs' original case but allowed them to submit a new filing with information backing up their advertising allegations.

    In dismissing the current suit, Sweet said that the plaintiffs had not followed his detailed instructions and he barred them from filing another version, quelling litigation fears the suit had sparked in the food industry, .

    "The plaintiffs have made no explicit allegations that they witnessed any particular deceptive advertisement and they have not provided McDonald's with enough information to determine whether its products are the cause of the alleged injuries," Sweet said.

    "Finally, the one advertisement which plaintiffs implicitly allege to have caused their injuries is objectively non-deceptive," he said.

    The suit has raised fears in the food industry of a new wave of tobacco-like litigation against restaurants and manufacturers. Indeed, the possibility of bringing more suits over fattening foods was the focus of a seminar during the spring in Boston attended by anti-tobacco lawyers.

    Indeed, when the judge threw out the first case in January, he left the door open to further litigation. In that ruling he referred to Chicken McNuggets as a "McFrankenstein creation" made of elements not used in home cooking.

    Sweet had said in January the plaintiffs could amend the suit with information backing their claim that diners have no idea what is really in their food or that the products have allegedly become more harmful because of processing.

    Although the plaintiff's lawyer initially refiled the suit with the allegation that consumers were unaware of the health hazards of processed food, he dropped the claim in June.

    The new filing, and Sweet's decision, thus focused primarily on deceptive advertising claims. But Sweet's decision also precludes plaintiffs from developing the case surrounding the harmfulness of processed foods in the future.

    Sweet said he had warned the plaintiffs that they had to make specific allegations about particular advertisements that could have caused their injuries and to give detailed about the connection between those injuries and eating McDonald's foods.

    "They have failed to remedy the defects of the initial complaint in the face of those warnings," Sweet said.

    The two plaintiffs in the case, which sought class action status, were born in 1984 and 1988. McDonald's lawyers had argued that the plaintiffs were too young to have seen or be affected by the 1987 print ads attached as exhibits in the suit. The Plaintiffs' lawyer could not be immediately reached for comment.
     
  2. underoverup

    underoverup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    75
    Unfortunately the plaintiff was so fat he also threw out his back in the process--- :p
     
  3. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,864
    Likes Received:
    41,391
    Judge sweet hates plaintiffs, no way they'll win in front of him.
     
  4. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    This one is way over the top.

    HOLY CRAP, MCDONALDS CAN GET YOU FAT IF YOU EAT IT DAILY?!?!

    This is an example of a frivolous lawsuit, but unless burgers are found to be as addicitive as nicotine, the plaintiffs need to eat right and exercise like the rest of us do. They could also tell their kids "no, you can't have Mickey D's tonight" instead of indulging them day after day. If anything, the parents are at fault for being too lazy to make their kids a balanced meal.
     
  5. Pipe

    Pipe Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2001
    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    115
    Are you implying that the plaintiffs would have fared differently in front of an *objective* judge?
     
  6. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,864
    Likes Received:
    41,391
    no, not at all. I'm relating what I know based on first-hand professional experience; personally, I feel that it was the right decision.

    However, given my experience, it's not untrue to say that there are certain judges in the Southern District who would have been more receptive to plaintiff's arguments; whether that be right, wrong, or more objective, or less objective, is not something that I meant to imply.
     
  7. underoverup

    underoverup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    75
    McGriddles don't help you lose weight? :confused:
     

Share This Page