There's no real money gain like people said thousand times. It doesn't matter if it's healthy or not if you don't advertise to incredible amount of masses as "healthy". If you do, better back it up.
They lied, they deserved what they get. That's all that matters. I think they should do it to all mass production companies at some extent. These companies are so used to lying about stuff, today lie is small, how can you know tomorrow it's not going to be big if they find out they can get along with it?
If they keep it only with Nutella nothing will change though, if they bring 1-2 more examples companies will look at their advertising policies.
I think we can all agree that this is a stupid bitch that is getting rewarded for being stupid. I think that's how a lot of things work around here nowadays. In business nowadays, dumb customers who get angry because they are retarded and don't like to read instructions or don't understand something thats quite simple, usually get a reward or something because they're too dumb to blame themselves and blame companies instead. It really hurts my soul and my brain to know that this is becoming the norm. Anyways, what intrigues me the most in this is that are lawsuits taxed in the US? I know the lottery/gameshows and anything to do with gambling is taxed like fuck apparently. Are lawsuits taxed the same way or taxed at all?
On April 28 2012 08:51 SgtCoDFish wrote: I saw a retarded thing like this earlier.
I was opening my box of 12 eggs and saw printed on the top:
"Allergy Advice: Contains Eggs."
Anyone who didn't work that one out probably deserves the allergic reaction. Sometimes things are so stupid.
But then you'll undoubtedly hear about some lawsuit with a man who claims he didn't know that eggs contain eggs...
I just don't understand some of these things. I swear some of these people sue companies just to make a lot of money through abusing a legal loophole, rather than truly being so stupid.
And in that case... is it really so stupid? Or is it rather intelligent?
On April 28 2012 14:59 nakedsurfer wrote: I think we can all agree that this is a stupid bitch that is getting rewarded for being stupid. I think that's how a lot of things work around here nowadays. In business nowadays, dumb customers who get angry because they are retarded and don't like to read instructions or don't understand something thats quite simple, usually get a reward or something because they're too dumb to blame themselves and blame companies instead. It really hurts my soul and my brain to know that this is becoming the norm. Anyways, what intrigues me the most in this is that are lawsuits taxed in the US? I know the lottery/gameshows and anything to do with gambling is taxed like fuck apparently. Are lawsuits taxed the same way or taxed at all?
I think we can all agree that you didn't bother to read the thread whatsoever and are talking off a few lines without looking at any information presented whatsoever.
On April 28 2012 14:57 Aelfric wrote: There's no real money gain like people said thousand times. It doesn't matter if it's healthy or not if you don't advertise to incredible amount of masses as "healthy". If you do, better back it up.
They lied, they deserved what they get. That's all that matters. I think they should do it to all mass production companies at some extent. These companies are so used to lying about stuff, today lie is small, how can you know tomorrow it's not going to be big if they find out they can get along with it?
If they keep it only with Nutella nothing will change though, if they bring 1-2 more examples companies will look at their advertising policies.
The FDA had a beef with the wording on Cheerios boxes about how it sells itself as a drug almost, when it says things like clinically proven etc General Mills first said it has all the studies proving it etc, but as soon as the FDA said if you want to sell it like a heart health drug it will be treated as a drug and would have to be submitted for the drug approval process by the FDA General Mills backed out and changed how they adversed. If you're gonna say shit have the balls to go though with it nutella clearly did not as they settled out of court.
I get the impression that US law system aims to protect idiots. Punitive punishments can work IF they are used correctly but not for this idiotic lawsuits.
On April 28 2012 08:57 MadProbe wrote: Now before you hate on this lady for being stupid.... see the actual advertisement first!
That's fuckin sleezy advertising. I'm glad they got sued.
It says no preservaties or artificial colours. It's healthy in that sense, but it's NOT healthy for a healthy diet that prevents obesity and diabetes. Either people are fucking dumb in US, or it is the law system that is dumb because these lawsuits are laughable. Some things are freaking common sense. The advertisement is not misleading at all. It says nothing about the caloric count, it says milk, hazelnut and some cocoa shit. That's what the actual product has in it.
Jury system is wrong in so many levels. Why let a bunch of idiots decide the outcome of the case? Competent and qualified judges should be making that call. I hope someone explain it further to me, can a judge dismiss the verdict of the jury and decide himself?
On April 28 2012 09:05 Keitzer wrote: The "ad" ( as linked in the Yahoo article )
If you watch it from a "balanced breakfast" side of things... it's VERY convincing toward the lady's action. I can see how she won.
Although ridiculous... i can see how..
Well that changes thing a little bit but still, you need to ask nutritionists, whether 10 gram nutella and fat-free milk along with a banana is healthy or not?
On April 28 2012 14:59 nakedsurfer wrote: I think we can all agree that this is a stupid bitch that is getting rewarded for being stupid. I think that's how a lot of things work around here nowadays. In business nowadays, dumb customers who get angry because they are retarded and don't like to read instructions or don't understand something thats quite simple, usually get a reward or something because they're too dumb to blame themselves and blame companies instead. It really hurts my soul and my brain to know that this is becoming the norm. Anyways, what intrigues me the most in this is that are lawsuits taxed in the US? I know the lottery/gameshows and anything to do with gambling is taxed like fuck apparently. Are lawsuits taxed the same way or taxed at all?
I think we can all agree that you didn't bother to read the thread whatsoever and are talking off a few lines without looking at any information presented whatsoever.
Lolll i think we can agree on that you're just as dumb then. I don't care if they advertise that nutella can give you a 3rd nutsack. It's quite fucking obviously to someone who has a brain that nutella isn't all that healthy. Just because they say something, it doesn't mean you have to turn your brain off and aimlessly follow what they say. You just have to read the fucking nutrition label that they are forced to put on the jar. Why are they forced to put it on there you ask? Well so stupid people who do stupid lawsuits like this can fucking read it and be like oh wait this isn't all that good for you. HERP DERP. So if you're going to quote me, you should atleast answer my question.
On April 28 2012 14:59 nakedsurfer wrote: I think we can all agree that this is a stupid bitch that is getting rewarded for being stupid. I think that's how a lot of things work around here nowadays. In business nowadays, dumb customers who get angry because they are retarded and don't like to read instructions or don't understand something thats quite simple, usually get a reward or something because they're too dumb to blame themselves and blame companies instead. It really hurts my soul and my brain to know that this is becoming the norm. Anyways, what intrigues me the most in this is that are lawsuits taxed in the US? I know the lottery/gameshows and anything to do with gambling is taxed like fuck apparently. Are lawsuits taxed the same way or taxed at all?
I think we can all agree that you didn't bother to read the thread whatsoever and are talking off a few lines without looking at any information presented whatsoever.
Lolll i think we can agree on that you're just as dumb then. I don't care if they advertise that nutella can give you a 3rd nutsack. It's quite fucking obviously to someone who has a brain that nutella isn't all that healthy. Just because they say something, it doesn't mean you have to turn your brain off and aimlessly follow what they say. You just have to read the fucking nutrition label that they are forced to put on the jar. Why are they forced to put it on there you ask? Well so stupid people who do stupid lawsuits like this can fucking read it and be like oh wait this isn't all that good for you. HERP DERP. So if you're going to quote me, you should atleast answer my question.
Insulting me now? You might want to calm down a bit dude, and well your at it read the rest of the thread.
This is a class action law-suit, with several high paying lawyers behind it and dozens of individual cases. This is not some 70 year old grandma who has no idea what is happening; it's a smart group of people who are attacking the company based on a loophole in their advertising, and it worked. The only stupid people here was the company itself; thinking they could play something like this off for that long.
edit: And it did not even go to trial, because the company did not want to risk it. They paid out to keep everyone from suing. Oh, and that "dumb bitch" only got 2k bucks.
On April 28 2012 15:08 Bleak wrote: I get the impression that US law system aims to protect idiots. Punitive punishments can work IF they are used correctly but not for this idiotic lawsuits.
So exploitation of idiots is okay in your book? Because they don't know better and you don't correct them it's okay to trick them into getting their money? Perhaps you think scamming people is legitimate becuase they didn't know better that they were being scammed. Perhaps me mugging you would be alright, after all why aren't you stronger and better at defending yourself, stupid laws protecting weaklings.
Oh wait that's right we have morality which governs laws.
Question who has the advantage when selling a product? A producer and professional marketer or the individual? The producer and professional marketer, the people who's lively hood is about getting you to but the product. So what? The individual has to education themselves on every subject for every product they come and buy that's an impossible task it's a full time job to properly understand and be able to refute every claim and bit of marketing.
In a lawsuit the million dollar company or the individual? The company just due to more likely to hire better/more lawyers, good lawyers may not be able to protect against explicit wrong doing but can really mitigate the damage.
On April 28 2012 15:08 Bleak wrote: I get the impression that US law system aims to protect idiots. Punitive punishments can work IF they are used correctly but not for this idiotic lawsuits.
That's fuckin sleezy advertising. I'm glad they got sued.
It says no preservaties or artificial colours. It's healthy in that sense, but it's NOT healthy for a healthy diet that prevents obesity and diabetes. Either people are fucking dumb in US, or it is the law system that is dumb because these lawsuits are laughable. Some things are freaking common sense. The advertisement is not misleading at all. It says nothing about the caloric count, it says milk, hazelnut and some cocoa shit. That's what the actual product has in it.
Jury system is wrong in so many levels. Why let a bunch of idiots decide the outcome of the case? Competent and qualified judges should be making that call. I hope someone explain it further to me, can a judge dismiss the verdict of the jury and decide himself?
There is no Jury, this was a settlement meaning it never really went to open court or was decided by a judge, the company saw they were gonna be fucked and gave in to avoid any criminal wrong doing plus possibility of higher pay outs and lawyer fees etc. https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/Portals/0/Documents/Settlement Agreement w exhibits.pdf ^the settlement agreement You just proved yourself misinformed here...
Transcripts of Nutella Television Advertisements “Mom” [MOM]: As a mom, I’m a great believer in Nutella, a delicious hazelnut spread that I use to get my kids to eat healthy foods. I spread a little on all kinds of healthy things, like multigrain toast. Every jar has wholesome, quality ingredients, like hazelnuts, skim milk, and a hint of delicious cocoa. And Nutella has no artificial colors or preservatives. It’s quick, it’s easy, and at breakfast I can use all the help I can get.
Btw the plaintiff for the class isn't likely to get much money at all, probably just 2k + Show Spoiler +
FEE AND INCENTIVE AWARDS The Injunctive Fee Award 50. In addition to and separate from the Cash Settlement Amount, Ferrero shall neither object to nor challenge Class Counsel’s application for a Fee Award, to be paid by Defendant or its insurance carrier, not to exceed Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) in connection with the Injunctive Relief described above in Section VII (the “Injunctive Fee Award”). Class Counsel shall neither request nor accept from the Court an Injunctive Fee Award of fees and costs more than the $3,000,000. The Cash Settlement Amount Fee Award 51. In addition to an award associated with the Injunctive Relief obtained for Settlement Class Members, Class Counsel will apply on behalf of Class Counsel and other Plaintiffs’ Counsel listed herein to the Court for a Fee Award from the Gross Settlement Fund of attorneys’ fees not to exceed thirty percent (30%) and reimbursement of expenses (the “Cash Settlement Amount Fee Award”). Defendant shall neither object to nor challenge Class Case 3:11-cv-01086-FLW -DEA Document 62-3 Filed 01/10/12 Page 28 of 45 PageID: 926 28 Counsel’s application for a Cash Settlement Amount Fee Award that does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the Gross Settlement Fund. Application and Payment of the Injunctive Fee Award and the Cash Settlement Amount Fee Awards 52. Class Counsel’s final application for any Fee Award, and any documents submitted in support thereof, shall be filed no later than forty-five (45) days before the Fairness Hearing. Any attorneys’ fees, expenses, and interest as are awarded by the Court to Class Counsel and other Plaintiffs’ Counsel listed herein shall be paid within seven (7) business days following an award by the Court, notwithstanding the existence of any timely filed objections thereto, or potential for appeal there from, or collateral attack on the Settlement or any part thereof, subject to Class Counsel’s obligation to make appropriate repayments to Defendant or the Settlement Fund, plus accrued interest at the same net rate as is earned by the Gross Settlement Fund, if and when, as a result of any appeal and/or further proceedings on remand, or successful collateral attack, the fee or cost award is reduced or reversed or return of the Gross Settlement Fund is required. If the Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement is reversed, a refund or repayment of the Fee Award shall be made to Defendant or other entity that made the payment (the “Payor”) plus accrued interest thereon at the six-month London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) if and when: (a) the Fee and Expense Award and/or the Incentive Fees are reduced, vacated, or reversed, without remand, by order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit or by final, non-appealable, order of the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey; (b) the Effective Date does not occur; (c) this Settlement is terminated or cancelled for any reason; (d) this Settlement is voided by any party; (e) the Fee and Expense Award and/or Incentive Fees do not become final; or (f) the Settlement is not approved, Case 3:11-cv-01086-FLW -DEA Document 62-3 Filed 01/10/12 Page 29 of 45 PageID: 927 29 or is reversed, or modified, without remand, by order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit or by final, non-appealable, order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The full amount of the Fee and Expense Award and/or Incentive Fees, or the amount by which any such award or fee is reduced, or modified, without remand, by order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit or by final, non-appealable, order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey shall be paid to the Payor within ten (10) business days of the date of the event requiring the refund and repayment as set forth in this Paragraph. 53. When an obligation to refund or repay the Fee and Expense Award and/or Incentive Fees arises under the preceding Paragraph, Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall be jointly and severally obligated to refund or repay to the Payor the full amount that is required to be refunded or repaid, plus accrued interest at six-month LIBOR, regardless of whether any portion of the Fee and Expense Award and/or Incentive Fees have already been distributed to Plaintiffs’ Counsel or any other person or entity. The obligations in this Paragraph and the preceding Paragraph shall survive and remain in full force and effect and be binding in all respects on Plaintiffs’ Counsel, even if the Settlement is terminated, the Settlement is not approved, or the Effective Date does not occur. 54. Any award of attorneys’ fees and costs shall be wired to an account established by Scott + Scott LLP for distribution to Plaintiffs’ Counsel. Defendant shall bare no responsibility or liability for the apportionment and distribution of fees to Plaintiffs’ Counsel. 55. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the procedure for the allowance (in whole or in part) by the Court of any application by Class Counsel for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses, to be paid directly by Defendant as the Case 3:11-cv-01086-FLW -DEA Document 62-3 Filed 01/10/12 Page 30 of 45 PageID: 928 30 Injunctive Fee Award or out of the Gross Settlement Fund as the Cash Settlement Amount Fee Award are to be considered by the Court separately and apart from its consideration of the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement, and any order or proceeding relating to the award of fees and expenses, or any appeal of any order relating thereto, shall not operate to terminate or cancel this Agreement and Settlement of the Action. The Incentive Award to Named Plaintiffs 56. Subject to approval by the Court and in recognition of Plaintiffs’ time and effort expended on behalf of the Settlement Class Members, Plaintiffs may seek an Incentive Award in the amount of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) each to be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund.
I think we should consider a class action lawsuit against Kellogg. Think about it folks.
The advertisement and packaging is misleading, the first thing that jumps out on the packaging is the fact that it contains a variety of vitamins, which is the implication that it's healthy. Now all we need is a face for the case, which would a be sympathetic old lady with grand children suffering from obesity due to overconsumption of Poptarts. All in favor?
She suffered third degree burns and had to stay in the hospital for 8 days for skin grafting. She required two years of medical treatment. She lost 20 pounds while in the hospital, dropping to 83 lbs.
"During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's."
Obviously a case of a business not giving a shit that what they were doing was dangerous.
So basically, Ferrero, the company that makes Nutella, got sued by some woman named Athena Hohenberg, because she was an idiot and thought Nutella would be HEALTHY for her children. Turns out, it's not (surprise surprise) and she filed a lawsuit claiming false advertising. She won the case, and Ferrero has to shell out $3.5 million, 2.5 of which will be spread out to claimants in a class action lawsuit.
I think this is retarded, and sometimes I really hate the people we live with. Thoughts?
your choice of wording in presenting the actual case is poor, even the second hand source from the article in which you linked provided slightly more details than you did.
the suit was "TV-ad viewers the idea that Nutella was part of a nutritious breakfast" that was probably thought up by her lawyers to mask her original intent of suing. in any event, such is life.
On April 28 2012 15:33 kineSiS- wrote: I think we should consider a class action lawsuit against Kellogg. Think about it folks.
The advertisement and packaging is misleading, the first thing that jumps out on the packaging is the fact that it contains a variety of vitamins, which is the implication that it's healthy. Now all we need is a face for the case, which would a be sympathetic old lady with grand children suffering from obesity due to overconsumption of Poptarts. All in favor?
On April 28 2012 14:57 Aelfric wrote: There's no real money gain like people said thousand times. It doesn't matter if it's healthy or not if you don't advertise to incredible amount of masses as "healthy". If you do, better back it up.
They lied, they deserved what they get. That's all that matters. I think they should do it to all mass production companies at some extent. These companies are so used to lying about stuff, today lie is small, how can you know tomorrow it's not going to be big if they find out they can get along with it?
If they keep it only with Nutella nothing will change though, if they bring 1-2 more examples companies will look at their advertising policies.
The FDA had a beef with the wording on Cheerios boxes about how it sells itself as a drug almost, when it says things like clinically proven etc General Mills first said it has all the studies proving it etc, but as soon as the FDA said if you want to sell it like a heart health drug it will be treated as a drug and would have to be submitted for the drug approval process by the FDA General Mills backed out and changed how they adversed. If you're gonna say shit have the balls to go though with it nutella clearly did not as they settled out of court.
We should sue smart asses who are too busy being snide to read
False advertisement is a touchy subject when you get into puffery.
On April 28 2012 14:59 nakedsurfer wrote: I think we can all agree that this is a stupid bitch that is getting rewarded for being stupid. I think that's how a lot of things work around here nowadays. In business nowadays, dumb customers who get angry because they are retarded and don't like to read instructions or don't understand something thats quite simple, usually get a reward or something because they're too dumb to blame themselves and blame companies instead. It really hurts my soul and my brain to know that this is becoming the norm. Anyways, what intrigues me the most in this is that are lawsuits taxed in the US? I know the lottery/gameshows and anything to do with gambling is taxed like fuck apparently. Are lawsuits taxed the same way or taxed at all?
I think we can all agree that you didn't bother to read the thread whatsoever and are talking off a few lines without looking at any information presented whatsoever.
Lolll i think we can agree on that you're just as dumb then. I don't care if they advertise that nutella can give you a 3rd nutsack. It's quite fucking obviously to someone who has a brain that nutella isn't all that healthy. Just because they say something, it doesn't mean you have to turn your brain off and aimlessly follow what they say. You just have to read the fucking nutrition label that they are forced to put on the jar. Why are they forced to put it on there you ask? Well so stupid people who do stupid lawsuits like this can fucking read it and be like oh wait this isn't all that good for you. HERP DERP. So if you're going to quote me, you should atleast answer my question.
Insulting me now? You might want to calm down a bit dude, and well your at it read the rest of the thread.
This is a class action law-suit, with several high paying lawyers behind it and dozens of individual cases. This is not some 70 year old grandma who has no idea what is happening; it's a smart group of people who are attacking the company based on a loophole in their advertising, and it worked. The only stupid people here was the company itself; thinking they could play something like this off for that long.
Hokay then replace "dumb bitch" with "dumb people". Again, this is completely stupid because it's made for the stupid. "Is it the most healthy thing? No. Is it the most unhealthy thing? No. Anyone can figure that out by just reading the jar itself. You don't have to buy the product before reading it either. It's right there infront of you. You can blame the company for saying a lie. But the whole case ends up being 'this company is telling people lies through their ads saying it's healthy, therefore the are tricking the public." Even though the public have ways to learn that it isn't entirely healthy. Maybe when they were saying it was healthy, they were comparing it to not eating breakfast at all instead of comparing it to brocolli or carrots. It's cases like these that make comapnies put "coffee is hot" on coffee cups or on healthy choice meals saying "please not that you must excersice and that just eating these is not entirely healthy(putting that direct quote probably would have saved them in the lawsuit to begin with because kitkats have it on their packages.). It's unlogical. It's like the blind leading the deaf.
On April 28 2012 14:59 nakedsurfer wrote: I think we can all agree that this is a stupid bitch that is getting rewarded for being stupid. I think that's how a lot of things work around here nowadays. In business nowadays, dumb customers who get angry because they are retarded and don't like to read instructions or don't understand something thats quite simple, usually get a reward or something because they're too dumb to blame themselves and blame companies instead. It really hurts my soul and my brain to know that this is becoming the norm. Anyways, what intrigues me the most in this is that are lawsuits taxed in the US? I know the lottery/gameshows and anything to do with gambling is taxed like fuck apparently. Are lawsuits taxed the same way or taxed at all?
I think we can all agree that you didn't bother to read the thread whatsoever and are talking off a few lines without looking at any information presented whatsoever.
Lolll i think we can agree on that you're just as dumb then. I don't care if they advertise that nutella can give you a 3rd nutsack. It's quite fucking obviously to someone who has a brain that nutella isn't all that healthy. Just because they say something, it doesn't mean you have to turn your brain off and aimlessly follow what they say. You just have to read the fucking nutrition label that they are forced to put on the jar. Why are they forced to put it on there you ask? Well so stupid people who do stupid lawsuits like this can fucking read it and be like oh wait this isn't all that good for you. HERP DERP. So if you're going to quote me, you should atleast answer my question.
Insulting me now? You might want to calm down a bit dude, and well your at it read the rest of the thread.
This is a class action law-suit, with several high paying lawyers behind it and dozens of individual cases. This is not some 70 year old grandma who has no idea what is happening; it's a smart group of people who are attacking the company based on a loophole in their advertising, and it worked. The only stupid people here was the company itself; thinking they could play something like this off for that long.
Hokay then replace "dumb bitch" with "dumb people". Again, this is completely stupid because it's made for the stupid. "Is it the most healthy thing? No. Is it the most unhealthy thing? No. Anyone can figure that out by just reading the jar itself. You don't have to buy the product before reading it either. It's right there infront of you. You can blame the company for saying a lie. But the whole case ends up being 'this company is telling people lies through their ads saying it's healthy, therefore the are tricking the public." Even though the public have ways to learn that it isn't entirely healthy. Maybe when they were saying it was healthy, they were comparing it to not eating breakfast at all instead of comparing it to brocolli or carrots. It's cases like these that make comapnies put "coffee is hot" on coffee cups or on healthy choice meals saying "please not that you must excersice and that just eating these is not entirely healthy(putting that direct quote probably would have saved them in the lawsuit to begin with because kitkats have it on their packages.). It's unlogical. It's like the blind leading the deaf.
So morality to you is that it's okay to lie as long as it's a bad lie? Oh that point you can actually get away with things like slander and libel if you're known to be a liar because your word isn't normally trusted anyways but to that end i doubt people seeing nutella commercials were flat out thinking they weren't telling the trust, it's assumed they weren't because that would be wrong and illegal XD
On October 04 2008 17:43 Hot_Bid wrote: hehe the thing about punitive damages are that people just see the number and don't fully understand the significance.
for example there are a lot of misguided opinions on the McDonald's coffee case (i'm sure many of you have heard of it), where a woman spilled McDonald's coffee on herself, got burned, and sued. She was awarded $3 million by the jury (later reduced to 600k). everywhere around the country you could hear the people groaning about how this was ridiculously unfair and stupid that someone could get that much money from a coffee spill.
some real facts about the situation may change your mind:
1. the woman offered to settle with mcdonalds for 20k (roughly the cost of her medical bills) but mcdonalds refused, so they went to trial (where the cost of just hiring lawyers and experts turned out to be much more than 20k)
2. the coffee wasn't just hot, it was scalding and superheated, to the point where she received burns over 6% of her body. the doctors said these were the worst burns they've ever seen from a liquid before. she had to have skin grafts to replace all the lost tissue and she also had severe muscle burns; the coffee literally melted some of her flesh off her thigh bones.
3. in the previous 10 years, McDonalds had over 700 claims of people being burned from their coffee, signaling that the company knew about the problem and didn't correct it
4. not only did they not correct the issue, but McDonald's actively had a policy to keep their coffee pots at 190 degrees, 50 more than the average hot cup of coffee. this was because McDonalds tested its coffee and realized that the scalding temperature masks the coffee's horrendous taste, so they overheated all their coffee without taking into consideration the safety hazard.
5. thermodynamics experts testified that the average cup of hot coffee burns skin exponentially less seriously; the threshold temperature is roughly 180 degrees for liquids to cause a full thickness burn
6. $2.7 million in punitive damages was the exact amount of two days worth of coffee profits from McDonald's restaurants
it boggles the mind how people can feel that "lawsuits are getting out of hand" and that its "ridiculously unfair" that a corporation that disregards safety and harms the public should be punished less for maliciously, knowingly, and actively creating a hazardous product.
only by hitting them with a large fine can we actually change their behavior, because otherwise they can just pay the small lawsuits and do a cost/benefit analysis on whats worth more: scalding coffee and paying a few burn victims or keeping their coffee at 150 degrees. we don't want companies to do this, it'd be horrible. we want them to actually be concerned about public safety, not just write it in as just another expense like napkins.
so yeah, before you go around saying omfg slip and fall he makes millions by suing, what ridiculousness! think about who you're defending.
btw yes you pay taxes on money gained from court unless it was from injuries physical/sick etc, how much varies by state and what it is etc.
Christ, don't people feel ashamed or dumb for spewing their uninformed opinions all over messege boards? Like don't you feel stupid for being so fucking outraged and so fucking wrong at the same time? I honestly just don't understand the arrogance sometimes, this thread is so sad. Read the other posts in it..
On April 28 2012 15:33 kineSiS- wrote: I think we should consider a class action lawsuit against Kellogg. Think about it folks.
The advertisement and packaging is misleading, the first thing that jumps out on the packaging is the fact that it contains a variety of vitamins, which is the implication that it's healthy. Now all we need is a face for the case, which would a be sympathetic old lady with grand children suffering from obesity due to overconsumption of Poptarts. All in favor?
I think it is also misleading to the fact that the package shows a hen on it! What if it is made of hen parts?!!!