On April 28 2012 08:47 zerotol wrote: Frankly i feel the American judicial system is a joke. This mostly stems from the fact that you can get claims that exceed the real (proven) damage instead of in my country where only the real proven and inflicted damage can be reimbursed and nothing more.
For the people who think i am a flaming moron: i am a jurist, not just someone who jells from the sideline.
How do you value someone losing a limb as a result of someone else's negligence? How do you value the loss of a child? Do the plaintiffs in these circumstances deserve nothing? Does the defendant deserve to skate free?
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.
That's a hilarious example XD. You couldn't make it more obvious if you tried.
But hey, the companies really shouldn't get away with lying. Maybe the lady is dumb (or maybe she's just trying to milk the system for money), but there should be some kind of penalty for false advertising, no exceptions. Because the moment they allow it on account of "it should be obvious they're lying" it opens up areas where companies can exploit the consumer in other less obvious ways.
personally, if I would own a company, I would not sell in the USA (doesn't matter what sell), because it is the only country with those crazy laws and lawsuits!
On April 28 2012 08:56 Defacer wrote: Could you imagine if you could sue politicians you've voted for for misleading you or misrepresenting themselves?
Ohhhhhhhhhh maaaaaaannnnnn...
i asked my contracts professor this in law school. he said you cant create a contract that they would give you something if you voted for them because it would be void as against public policy (i.e., you cant sell your vote). bullshit.
You know, it's interesting about lawsuits like these, I used to think they were really stupid, but there's a weird leap of faith that's implicit in that argument. If this woman didn't have a case, then how did she win against a corporation fully able to hire a strong defense team? How did the case proceed to court if it didn't have merit? To win a lawsuit like this, you need to actually be able to present convincing evidence to a lot of smart people. That's how the system works, and it's a good system.
So yeah, we can all laugh at things like this, but almost always, there's an actual case behind this. Instances of bad lawsuits making it to court, let alone winning are tremendously rare.
The old grandmother with the coffee suit? The coffee actually was way too hot, she received third degree burns and almost died from the spill. That's obviously unacceptable, but since she was gagged as part of the settlement, she wasn't able to plead her case to the media, while McDonalds lawyers and all different politicians were allowed to run around drumming up support for tort reform.
I dunno, when you look deeper, there's almost always a legit case. And don't feel sorry for Nutella, 3.5 million is nothing for a company like this.
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.
In the McDonald's case, I believe the coffee that was served was almost still at it's boiling point. And the 79 year-old that sued suffered third degree burns
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.
That's a hilarious example XD. You couldn't make it more obvious if you tried.
But hey, the companies really shouldn't get away with lying. Maybe the lady is dumb (or maybe she's just trying to milk the system for money), but there should be some kind of penalty for false advertising, no exceptions. Because the moment they allow it on account of "it should be obvious they're lying" it opens up areas where companies can exploit the consumer in other ways.
Hard to top the eggs containing eggs, but I'll try: On the wrapping of my ham it says "free of gluten and lactose". I don't even know what's worse, the implication that meat could possibly contain bread and milk, or the implication that bread and milk are toxic.
I actually really like this. We all know Nutella isn't healthy, but this woman caught them lying on it and exploited it to make a shit ton of money. Good for her.
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
Yeah I guess you got to look on the bright side lol...
On April 28 2012 08:57 Poffel wrote: Well, the question is what's more retarded... the marketing campaign or the consumer believing them. Even though it's borderline suicidal to expect to get your daily vitamins out of Nutella, I really hope that this forces food companies to stop their equally idiotic advertising...
Yeah but if you admit that the campaign is false / misleading then you're basically saying that commercials brainwash / manipulate us. Which is by no means "right" in a "free" country.
That's fuckin sleezy advertising. I'm glad they got sued.
ps how do u embed video on TL?
where's the sleezy advertising? all the ad said was things like "breakfast never tasted this good" etc
Agreed.
not once did nutella state in that commerical that it was healthy. You can argue all about "implied" but (at least in canada) there is a bit of common sense involved. Honestly the only healthy thing I can see is saying "goes good on whole-grain toast or whole-grain waffles". They're not even mentioning that nutella has a health-concious factor.
If the commerical said "a healthy way" or anything that basicly said "this is a health food" then i could see there being a case. but not on the jar or in the commerical do they ever make this claim. I expect it to be overturned or the fine severely reduced.
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.
Can't be said often enough. Literally, unfortunately, though because it is still used as an example.
For this case, I think it is a very good decision. It has become common to flat out lie in advertisements, calling the most fattening and sugary products good for your health, especially targeting children. Such behavior is worth punishing imo.
On April 28 2012 08:57 Poffel wrote: Well, the question is what's more retarded... the marketing campaign or the consumer believing them. Even though it's borderline suicidal to expect to get your daily vitamins out of Nutella, I really hope that this forces food companies to stop their equally idiotic advertising...
Yeah but if you admit that the campaign is false / misleading then you're basically saying that commercials brainwash / manipulate us. Which is by no means "right" in a "free" country.
I would rather call it "insult" than "manipulate". Doesn't make it right either.
EPT
