|
On April 28 2012 10:15 Bigtony wrote:
...your logic is undeniable sir. They never say "nutella is healthy" outright. Just like tobacco commercials don't say "smoking will make you way cool bro" and liquor commercials don't say "drink this so you can be cool and awesome like the people in this commercial."
Are you prepared to tell me that is not the clear implication of these commercials?
This is a good point; the Joe Camel ads never had any explicit message to kids, and yet RJR caught all kinds of hell for them (see Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company) and agreed to stop using the character as part of a settlement of a lawsuit.
|
On April 28 2012 09:59 eFonSG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 09:35 Marti wrote:On April 28 2012 09:27 semantics wrote:
msleading people is to get more money is morally wrong in my book, just to crack down on flat out lies although easy to point out isn't following the spirit of such laws. Misleading people isn't always about explicit things.
If i put on a job application i went to say Berkley and dance around graduating, it's strongly implied that i went to UC Berkeley and hold a degree from there, that would still be considers lieing on your job application would it not? Just because you don't flat out say something and let other people do the work doesn't mean you haven't done something wrong. A lie of omission is still a lie. THIS On April 28 2012 09:27 xDaunt wrote:
Everyone thinks that lawsuits are abusive until they get fucked over by someone and realize that they need a lawyer to set things right. There is a reason why the system exists. THIS On April 28 2012 09:27 Talin wrote:
And by the way, being charged only $3.5 million for advertising an unhealthy product as healthy is a joke. And finally this : On April 28 2012 09:27 MilesTeg wrote:
What's sad is people's reactions here. We got so used to bullshit marketing that we expect companies to get away with anything. I'm sorry, if your product is a fat greasy chocolate paste (which I absolutely love by the way, I eat it with a spoon), you shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as something healthy. If this sort of lawsuit punishes blatant marketing lies then it's a good thing. And please, for god's sake people stop it with the " lol only in america " every half decent country has laws against this and thank god they do, because without those nothing stops big companies from manipulating you. Which they already do for the most part. Yes the average person knows nutella isn't healthy. But a big company shouldn't be allowed to trick you or your subconcious into thinking it is. If you got told 100 times a day " nutella is healthy " you'd end up believing it. Edit : it's amazing how people just show up and comment without even reading what other posters have said, or sometimes without even reading the op. The youtube video alone must have been posted three times already. But its based off a random persons inference of what happened in the commercial. The commercial didnt say "Nutella is healthy, eat it". The ingredients are on the back on the container, sure there should be laws to prevent false advertising and holding big companies accountable. BUT there also should be protection for the companies from lawsuits like this one. The ingredients are clearly marked on the container, it should be the consumers responsibility to read the ingredients, especially without a real false advertisement.
SERIOUSLY ? SERIOUSLY ? I MEAN SERIOUSLY ????
IT'S IMPLIED ! OR DO YOU NOT SEE IT ?
How about this : I make a product so toxic you'd have your lifespan halved after drinking a bottle of it. Then i make an ad about how great you'll feel after drinking it ( simple as that, you'll feel " great " , not healthy, just " great " which really doesn't mean anything ) and on the screen you see a couple jogging in a park or something. BUT WAIT! WAIT ! ON THE BOTTLE IT SAYS " HIGHLY TOXIC ". By your logic everything is fine, nobody should be able to sue me right ?
|
the planet needs natural selection haha
|
On April 28 2012 08:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 08:54 TALegion wrote:
I'm losing more and more faith in this country every single day. Is it like this everywhere else?
I need to see this trial. I can't believe that someone, more or less and entire jury, accepted this without there being some HUGE argument that this article doesn't talk about. The press is horrible at reporting these types of cases. It ALWAYS omits critical details. The most notorious example is the "hot coffee" case. Pretty much no one knows what that case is even about. I promise you that there is a very good reason why Ferrero shelled out so much money in this case.
This is particularly what I was thinking. The old woman who burnt herself with McDonalds coffee because McDonalds didn't modernize their coffee machines intentionally. There MUST be some good reason for this, or else it's pure retard on all fronts.
On April 28 2012 10:38 Marti wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 09:59 eFonSG wrote:On April 28 2012 09:35 Marti wrote:On April 28 2012 09:27 semantics wrote:
msleading people is to get more money is morally wrong in my book, just to crack down on flat out lies although easy to point out isn't following the spirit of such laws. Misleading people isn't always about explicit things.
If i put on a job application i went to say Berkley and dance around graduating, it's strongly implied that i went to UC Berkeley and hold a degree from there, that would still be considers lieing on your job application would it not? Just because you don't flat out say something and let other people do the work doesn't mean you haven't done something wrong. A lie of omission is still a lie. THIS On April 28 2012 09:27 xDaunt wrote:
Everyone thinks that lawsuits are abusive until they get fucked over by someone and realize that they need a lawyer to set things right. There is a reason why the system exists. THIS On April 28 2012 09:27 Talin wrote:
And by the way, being charged only $3.5 million for advertising an unhealthy product as healthy is a joke. And finally this : On April 28 2012 09:27 MilesTeg wrote:
What's sad is people's reactions here. We got so used to bullshit marketing that we expect companies to get away with anything. I'm sorry, if your product is a fat greasy chocolate paste (which I absolutely love by the way, I eat it with a spoon), you shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as something healthy. If this sort of lawsuit punishes blatant marketing lies then it's a good thing. And please, for god's sake people stop it with the " lol only in america " every half decent country has laws against this and thank god they do, because without those nothing stops big companies from manipulating you. Which they already do for the most part. Yes the average person knows nutella isn't healthy. But a big company shouldn't be allowed to trick you or your subconcious into thinking it is. If you got told 100 times a day " nutella is healthy " you'd end up believing it. Edit : it's amazing how people just show up and comment without even reading what other posters have said, or sometimes without even reading the op. The youtube video alone must have been posted three times already. But its based off a random persons inference of what happened in the commercial. The commercial didnt say "Nutella is healthy, eat it". The ingredients are on the back on the container, sure there should be laws to prevent false advertising and holding big companies accountable. BUT there also should be protection for the companies from lawsuits like this one. The ingredients are clearly marked on the container, it should be the consumers responsibility to read the ingredients, especially without a real false advertisement. SERIOUSLY ? SERIOUSLY ? I MEAN SERIOUSLY ???? IT'S IMPLIED ! OR DO YOU NOT SEE IT ? How about this : I make a product so toxic you'd have your lifespan halved after drinking a bottle of it. Then i make an ad about how great you'll feel after drinking it ( simple as that, you'll feel " great " , not healthy, just " great " which really doesn't mean anything ) and on the screen you see a couple jogging in a park or something. BUT WAIT! WAIT ! ON THE BOTTLE IT SAYS " HIGHLY TOXIC ". By your logic everything is fine, nobody should be able to sue me right ?
Abuse of quotes make it seem like your questions are objective and rhetoric, which is kinda makes you look like an asshole if someone disagrees. Yes, I'd say it's their fault for drinking it. Nutritional information is mandatorially put on everything for the use of consumers, and if they don't read it cause they're fucking lazy and just go by subjective advertising done by a company who wants nothing more than to universally promote their product by any means necesarry, then it's their fault for drinking it.
You can lead a horse to water, and if they don't drink, don't sue the fucking farmer.
|
On April 28 2012 10:40 TALegion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 08:57 xDaunt wrote:On April 28 2012 08:54 TALegion wrote:
I'm losing more and more faith in this country every single day. Is it like this everywhere else?
I need to see this trial. I can't believe that someone, more or less and entire jury, accepted this without there being some HUGE argument that this article doesn't talk about. The press is horrible at reporting these types of cases. It ALWAYS omits critical details. The most notorious example is the "hot coffee" case. Pretty much no one knows what that case is even about. I promise you that there is a very good reason why Ferrero shelled out so much money in this case. This is particularly what I was thinking. The old woman who burnt herself with McDonalds coffee because McDonalds didn't modernize their coffee machines intentionally. There MUST be some good reason for this, or else it's pure retard on all fronts.
After I got a multimillion dollar verdict for a client in a case, I was interviewed by a reporter about the details of the case. I force fed her all of the important details, and she still didn't really convey everything well in the article that was written.
Journalists can be pretty bad.
|
Gotta love America for all these law-stories. Americans really are the most fun people on the planet.
+100500
I actually don't know of any other nation that dumb ^^. I don't mean it in a bad way, but srsly, too many examples.
User was warned for this post
|
The press is horrible at reporting these types of cases. It ALWAYS omits critical details. The most notorious example is the "hot coffee" case. Pretty much no one knows what that case is even about. I promise you that there is a very good reason why Ferrero shelled out so much money in this case.
Indeed, the McDonald's Coffee lady a. Had third degree burns b. Tried to settle outside of court beforehand (and c. Had damages reduced to a couple hundred grand rather than millions). In judicial system stories, if it sounds too ludicrious to be true, it probably is. The judicial process has flaws, but they tend to exercise common sense.
|
On April 28 2012 08:42 thatsundowner wrote:
as dumb as this lady is, anything that makes companies stop outright lying in advertisements is probably a good thing
This. You can say it's retarded that some "dumb lady" sued for millions but you can't deny that companies need to stop dicking around when it comes to making claims that they can't hold a candle to. I'm sick of these B.S. advertising claims that are not only false but can be detrimental to consumers. And there's no way you can justify a future where companies can lie all they want unopposed by consumers; that's just madness.
|
On April 28 2012 09:59 eFonSG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 09:35 Marti wrote:On April 28 2012 09:27 semantics wrote:
msleading people is to get more money is morally wrong in my book, just to crack down on flat out lies although easy to point out isn't following the spirit of such laws. Misleading people isn't always about explicit things.
If i put on a job application i went to say Berkley and dance around graduating, it's strongly implied that i went to UC Berkeley and hold a degree from there, that would still be considers lieing on your job application would it not? Just because you don't flat out say something and let other people do the work doesn't mean you haven't done something wrong. A lie of omission is still a lie. THIS On April 28 2012 09:27 xDaunt wrote:
Everyone thinks that lawsuits are abusive until they get fucked over by someone and realize that they need a lawyer to set things right. There is a reason why the system exists. THIS On April 28 2012 09:27 Talin wrote:
And by the way, being charged only $3.5 million for advertising an unhealthy product as healthy is a joke. And finally this : On April 28 2012 09:27 MilesTeg wrote:
What's sad is people's reactions here. We got so used to bullshit marketing that we expect companies to get away with anything. I'm sorry, if your product is a fat greasy chocolate paste (which I absolutely love by the way, I eat it with a spoon), you shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as something healthy. If this sort of lawsuit punishes blatant marketing lies then it's a good thing. And please, for god's sake people stop it with the " lol only in america " every half decent country has laws against this and thank god they do, because without those nothing stops big companies from manipulating you. Which they already do for the most part. Yes the average person knows nutella isn't healthy. But a big company shouldn't be allowed to trick you or your subconcious into thinking it is. If you got told 100 times a day " nutella is healthy " you'd end up believing it. Edit : it's amazing how people just show up and comment without even reading what other posters have said, or sometimes without even reading the op. The youtube video alone must have been posted three times already. But its based off a random persons inference of what happened in the commercial. The commercial didnt say "Nutella is healthy, eat it". The ingredients are on the back on the container, sure there should be laws to prevent false advertising and holding big companies accountable. BUT there also should be protection for the companies from lawsuits like this one. The ingredients are clearly marked on the container, it should be the consumers responsibility to read the ingredients, especially without a real false advertisement.
lol protection for the company
Corporations get a lot of benefits and protection in this country, and 3.5 million isn't really a big deal at all to them.
|
I can't be the only one who picked up on the "spread" pun. Please. Someone. Save me.
|
Haha i must say, every Nutella commercial I've ever seen has in some way said how it is a good, beneficial thing to eat. Maybe not "healthy" but still hilariously funny considering it's basically just cake icing in a jar.
Lots of lawsuits are totally dumb, but I don't find this one that outlandish. It's not like Nutella is going out of business, they are just getting their wrist slapped for years of stupid ads.
|
It might be 'retarded' but they got $2.5 million and you haven't....
**edit**
how many noobs on sc2 would act that way for free just for lols its only a matter of time before they realize they can get paid for being themselves
|
A nuttela advert was pulled in the UK because they were claiming it could form part of a balanced diet, which would imply it being healthy, as no nutritionist would tell anyone to include it in their diet. Just because i feel its common sense to me that this product isnt going to be the least bit healthy doesnt mean the advert wont sway someone, i recall there was a case of an elderly woman drying off her dog in a microwave, the dog exploded and she sued the microwave company, she didnt know how it "heated" things so it wasnt common sense to her not to put a living thing in there. Judging a product but its appearance or advert is quite easy i feel, but if i was given nothing but its nutritional information and a misleading advert i could quite possibly be mislead about the product. Good result for the consumer overall.
|
On April 28 2012 08:40 flamewheel wrote:
Coffee is hot. Don't stick forks in electrical sockets. Don't jump off building roofs.
People are just eh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
gotta love the famous hot coffee lawsuit. Mcdonalds now even has "caution cold" on their iced coffee. Can you imagine someone saying they got hypothermia from a cold drink AHHAHAHAHAH
|
The woman is a fucking genius to win a case like this... lol
In all honesty it's not so bad in a long shot as people want to believe it is. 10g / slice of bread is like NOTHING. Lets say the kid eats 2-3 slices of bread. From nutella that would be like 45-60(ish) kCal sucrose carbs in total. And here's the thing, I don't care what people say is technically "healthy" food or not. When you wake up after a 7-8h of sleep you want to get out of the catabolic state (when the body is pretty much eating itself /bye muscles) as fast as possible. Staying in the catabolic state for a long time after you wake up in the morning is not healthy. Ofc if you want to do it right to kick start your metabolism in the morning I'd always prefer taking dextrose (grape sugar) > fructose (fruits) > sucrose (plain sugar) to bring the glycogen level to normal (until the complex carbs from oatmeal start kicking in).
To say a moderate amount of nutella for breakfast is unhealthy for you or your kids is just ridiculous. People might as well be starting to sue all companies who make any form of cereal/ cornflakes or whatever that has sucrose in them and claim for it to be "healty" breakfast.
Just my opinion and I'm in no mean a dietary expert. I just know what "works" for me and how to maintain/achieve physique goals depending on the season.
|
I don't see where in hell they say it's good for you...
|
On April 28 2012 08:40 flamewheel wrote:
Coffee is hot. Don't stick forks in electrical sockets. Don't jump off building roofs.
People are just eh.
McDonalds got sued for this. The women got burnt by coffee and won the case.
|
On April 28 2012 11:00 RezChi wrote:
I don't see where in hell they say it's good for you...
It is implied! C'mon, why does everything have to boil down to technicalities and semantics. Can you not understand the perils of subliminal and deceptive advertising?
On April 28 2012 10:57 nimbus99 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 08:40 flamewheel wrote:
Coffee is hot. Don't stick forks in electrical sockets. Don't jump off building roofs.
People are just eh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurantsgotta love the famous hot coffee lawsuit. Mcdonalds now even has "caution cold" on their iced coffee. Can you imagine someone saying they got hypothermia from a cold drink AHHAHAHAHAH
Yes, hilarious I'm sure. All fun and games until it's your genitals that need a skin graft eh?
|
On April 28 2012 10:40 TALegion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 08:57 xDaunt wrote:On April 28 2012 08:54 TALegion wrote:
I'm losing more and more faith in this country every single day. Is it like this everywhere else?
I need to see this trial. I can't believe that someone, more or less and entire jury, accepted this without there being some HUGE argument that this article doesn't talk about. The press is horrible at reporting these types of cases. It ALWAYS omits critical details. The most notorious example is the "hot coffee" case. Pretty much no one knows what that case is even about. I promise you that there is a very good reason why Ferrero shelled out so much money in this case. This is particularly what I was thinking. The old woman who burnt herself with McDonalds coffee because McDonalds didn't modernize their coffee machines intentionally. There MUST be some good reason for this, or else it's pure retard on all fronts. Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 10:38 Marti wrote:On April 28 2012 09:59 eFonSG wrote:On April 28 2012 09:35 Marti wrote:On April 28 2012 09:27 semantics wrote:
msleading people is to get more money is morally wrong in my book, just to crack down on flat out lies although easy to point out isn't following the spirit of such laws. Misleading people isn't always about explicit things.
If i put on a job application i went to say Berkley and dance around graduating, it's strongly implied that i went to UC Berkeley and hold a degree from there, that would still be considers lieing on your job application would it not? Just because you don't flat out say something and let other people do the work doesn't mean you haven't done something wrong. A lie of omission is still a lie. THIS On April 28 2012 09:27 xDaunt wrote:
Everyone thinks that lawsuits are abusive until they get fucked over by someone and realize that they need a lawyer to set things right. There is a reason why the system exists. THIS On April 28 2012 09:27 Talin wrote:
And by the way, being charged only $3.5 million for advertising an unhealthy product as healthy is a joke. And finally this : On April 28 2012 09:27 MilesTeg wrote:
What's sad is people's reactions here. We got so used to bullshit marketing that we expect companies to get away with anything. I'm sorry, if your product is a fat greasy chocolate paste (which I absolutely love by the way, I eat it with a spoon), you shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as something healthy. If this sort of lawsuit punishes blatant marketing lies then it's a good thing. And please, for god's sake people stop it with the " lol only in america " every half decent country has laws against this and thank god they do, because without those nothing stops big companies from manipulating you. Which they already do for the most part. Yes the average person knows nutella isn't healthy. But a big company shouldn't be allowed to trick you or your subconcious into thinking it is. If you got told 100 times a day " nutella is healthy " you'd end up believing it. Edit : it's amazing how people just show up and comment without even reading what other posters have said, or sometimes without even reading the op. The youtube video alone must have been posted three times already. But its based off a random persons inference of what happened in the commercial. The commercial didnt say "Nutella is healthy, eat it". The ingredients are on the back on the container, sure there should be laws to prevent false advertising and holding big companies accountable. BUT there also should be protection for the companies from lawsuits like this one. The ingredients are clearly marked on the container, it should be the consumers responsibility to read the ingredients, especially without a real false advertisement. SERIOUSLY ? SERIOUSLY ? I MEAN SERIOUSLY ???? IT'S IMPLIED ! OR DO YOU NOT SEE IT ? How about this : I make a product so toxic you'd have your lifespan halved after drinking a bottle of it. Then i make an ad about how great you'll feel after drinking it ( simple as that, you'll feel " great " , not healthy, just " great " which really doesn't mean anything ) and on the screen you see a couple jogging in a park or something. BUT WAIT! WAIT ! ON THE BOTTLE IT SAYS " HIGHLY TOXIC ". By your logic everything is fine, nobody should be able to sue me right ? Abuse of quotes make it seem like your questions are objective and rhetoric, which is kinda makes you look like an asshole if someone disagrees. Yes, I'd say it's their fault for drinking it. Nutritional information is mandatorially put on everything for the use of consumers, and if they don't read it cause they're fucking lazy and just go by subjective advertising done by a company who wants nothing more than to universally promote their product by any means necesarry, then it's their fault for drinking it. You can lead a horse to water, and if they don't drink, don't sue the fucking farmer.
Irrelevant. It would be more like " leading a horse to somewhere by tricking him into thinking there's water " then he doesn't get any water ( and dies ) but it's not my fault, he was dumb enough to belive there was water.
|
On April 28 2012 10:40 TALegion wrote:
Abuse of quotes make it seem like your questions are objective and rhetoric, which is kinda makes you look like an asshole if someone disagrees. Yes, I'd say it's their fault for drinking it. Nutritional information is mandatorially put on everything for the use of consumers, and if they don't read it cause they're fucking lazy and just go by subjective advertising done by a company who wants nothing more than to universally promote their product by any means necesarry, then it's their fault for drinking it.
What if you don't have any knowledge of nutrition? What if you don't know what a "cholesterol" is? According to this thread, we should just call these people stupid and decide we don't give a shit about them and pretend they somehow don't matter. Which is actually many times more stupid than not knowing something, and let me demonstrate why.
Let's say you know the basics about nutrition enough to determine Nutella isn't, in fact, healthy. It's hardly an arcane knowledge. But do you have a similar - or higher, as is usually required - level of knowledge for each and every type of product you buy? Computer hardware, software, cars, clothing, pets, houses, literally everything you've ever bought and used? Likely, you don't. You could look it up on the internet, sure (and at least for as long as your country doesn't pass some of the more oppressive laws being proposed lately, you might even find objective information there!). But then what if you don't have an internet connection? You could look it up in books, but it is time-inefficient and finding relevant and recent information can be problematic.
The bottom line is, you can be the smartest, most informed and the most knowledgeable person around, and there will still be plenty of holes in your knowledge that you can get screwed over when deciding to purchase something. Moreover, even if you were absolutely committed and pedantic about informing yourself about things you buy, there's still a limit called TIME. You simply don't have enough time to research and understand the background of every product you need in detail. It's humanly impossible. And the reality is that most people won't even be all that knowledgeable and informed in the first place.
You can look at it from another perspective as well - what is the purpose of advertising? Advertising, like many things, is a service - an ad IS information, so why settle for allowing companies to intentionally provide false or misleading information? Do you think false information is somehow beneficial to anyone except the company in question? What you hear in an advertisement should be the relevant information about the product that helps you could make an decision on whether to purchase it or not. You should not have to spend additional time elsewhere double-checking the information you already heard - don't you see how that's bad for you? At best you're either wasting time or money. At worst, you're unknowingly consuming some product that's actually horrible for you.
If you willingly put the burden of being informed on the consumer alone and remove all responsibility companies have when it comes to product presentation, you're literally screwing yourself over, and pretty much everybody else. So why do it? This is what bothers me. Why willingly accept this burden when it's a dozen times more rational, logical AND practical to force companies to provide accurate information about their product, without lies and deception?
If the so-called "stupid people" bother you so much, you need to realize that allowing companies to get away with lying in mass media and blaming people who "fall for it" instead never made ANYBODY less stupid, it never educated anyone. In fact that whole attitude is reminiscent of "it's her fault that she got raped" argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
