EPT
Nutella loses $3.5million lawsuit - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
| ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
Why is that relevant? So a company should be able to exploit people with low IQs? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:17 Defacer wrote: Yes, very yes. And I was disappointed to find out that we're out of it right now at my house. My mom makes cookies and biscotti with Nutella in it. Anything with that stuff in it is delicious.Does anyone else have a craving for Nutella now? | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:16 lolspoon wrote: USA never stops surprise me Get the fuck out of here, please. | ||
|
ItsMeDomLee
Canada2732 Posts
Why wouldn't I if I've never tried it? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
According to the product label, the main ingredients of Nutella are sugar and vegetable oils (mostly palm oil[5]), followed by hazelnut, cocoa solids, and skimmed milk. In the United States, Nutella contains soy products.[6] Nutella is marketed as "hazelnut cream" in many countries. Under Italian law, it cannot be labeled as a chocolate cream, as it does not meet minimum cocoa solids concentration criteria. About half of the calories in Nutella come from fat (11 g in a 37 g serving, or 99 kcal out of 200 kcal) and about 40% of the calories come from sugar (20 g, 80 kcal). all of that healthy goodness. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:15 Roe wrote: It's wrong to be sued because of what is "implied". There is absolutely no objective argument in this kind of decision. 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. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:23 lodeet wrote: Of course there is something wrong however rather than being jealous come to america and abuse it. Lawsuits are a huge industry thats why there are ads on tv about it all day long. You'd be putting a lot of people out of buisness if you couldn't sue for stupid shit all day it's just part of the US. 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. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
| ||
|
MilesTeg
France1271 Posts
| ||
|
Marti
552 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:20 Roe wrote: That would make all advertisement a valid target for multi-million dollar lawsuits, and with your reasoning anyone suing against an advertisement should win, regardless of the circumstances. So you're saying it's okay because everyone does it and it would make every misleading ad a target ? With your reasoning it should be easy to legalize murder i guess. It's manipulation and it's not okay, and with his reasoning everyone suing against a misleading advertisement should win. Everyone suing against a non-misleading ad would loose. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:25 mindspike wrote: Why is that relevant? So a company should be able to exploit people with low IQs? well, because most false advertising laws require "reliance" meaning that you had to rely on their misrepresentations to your detriment. she had been eating this for years. its hard to say that she continued to think it was healthy after eating it and being able to see the ingredients / health facts on the label. | ||
|
Battleaxe
United States843 Posts
With that said, I despise nutella as a product because I think it tastes like I'm eating shit, so I could really care less that they're losing money | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
Can't believe this girl got 3.5 million dollars in damages though, thats some real bullshit right there. | ||
Maekchu
140 Posts
After watching the advertisement, which is linked somewhere in this thread. They nowhere in it claim that this product is healthy. Is claims it is an easy breakfast (cause it is... Put some on a bread and it's ready to go), children like it (Children like anything with choco in it), it's made of simple quality ingredients (doesn't mean that quality ingredients can't make you fat). Yes, I do agree people having the right to sue major corporations if the people suing actually have a case. But this case is just ridiculous, and I'm surprised Ferrero even decided to settle to pay out money to the woman. I suppose, it's all in order to avoid major focus and show some goodwill. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
![[image loading]](http://iamnotafoodie.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/nutrition-facts-label.jpg) | ||
|
PlosionCornu
Italy814 Posts
And then marketing babble about being "balanced" and "complete" for breakfast, with a full load of tastiness. Never heard anything about being healthy, nope. | ||
|
Ryder.
1117 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:02 Poffel wrote: 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. Gluten and/or lactose intolerances are not uncommon. It isn't all that ridiculous either, what if it was for fish or something which was covered and cooked with bread crumbs? Better just to be safe than sorry and slap that sign on everything that they know for sure doesn't contain any meat or gluten. | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:25 mindspike wrote: Why is that relevant? So a company should be able to exploit people with low IQs? Exactly. | ||
| ||
