EPTEDIT:
Also from reading the article, she does not get $3.5 million. She gets like $1 million. $2.5 million is for the class-action lawsuit.
Nutella loses $3.5million lawsuit - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
EDIT: Also from reading the article, she does not get $3.5 million. She gets like $1 million. $2.5 million is for the class-action lawsuit. | ||
|
SuperYo1000
United States880 Posts
| ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:59 eFonSG wrote: 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. I pray to God you don't actually believe what you just typed. They made a clearly FALSE claim. Really there's no way around that. | ||
|
lolspoon
450 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:26 liberal wrote: Chalk up another win for the morons of society. Get the fuck out of here, please. lol u mad sir? Sorry but every lawsuit like this comes from USA User was warned for this post | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On April 28 2012 10:04 Mr. Black wrote: This version of the commercial very clearly claims nutella is healthy. It is just as deceptive as a bait and switch. Still doesn't say nutella is healthy. Watch the video again, it says "a delicious hazelnut spread that i use to get my kids to eat healthy foods". Are you prepared to tell me that that means nutella is healthy? Or do you realize that the woman means she's using it to get her kids to eat foods that are healthy? | ||
|
MooMooMugi
United States10531 Posts
| ||
|
Atheist
186 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:38 rotinegg wrote: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/today-food-finance-nutella-not-broccoli-162956191.html 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? Is there a source other than yahoo which elaborates how her lawyers won her the case? I mean this is a international corporate entity she is up against, and how she manages to win must be stuff legal legend in the years to come. | ||
|
askTeivospy
1525 Posts
| ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
Are you prepared to tell me that is not the clear implication of these commercials? | ||
|
jobber123rd
United States501 Posts
On April 28 2012 10:13 Atheist wrote: Is there a source other than yahoo which elaborates how her lawyers won her the case? I mean this is a international corporate entity she is up against, and how she manages to win must be stuff legal legend in the years to come. The article itself states that it was a settlement. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
Also, good on the posters calling out the ignorance over the McDonalds coffee case (a poster child for tort reform). Refreshing to see people are actually informed about that. | ||
|
Trotske
410 Posts
| ||
|
RusHXceL
United States1004 Posts
| ||
|
ObliviousNA
United States535 Posts
Sure, it sounds bad when she says stuff like " I thought it would make my kids healthy, but it didn't! " (not actual quote, just general impression), but in the American justice system, there always needs to be a victim/injured party. Without that, the lawsuit cannot legally take place. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt in this case because I HATE false advertising and this "part of a balanced breakfast" bs. Are there worse offenders in corporate America? Sure. Should another company have been sued instead? Yeah probably. At this point, I'm just glad SOMEONE got a slap on the wrist so other companies think before they publish these commercials. | ||
|
Artrey
Germany270 Posts
Ferrero has a long history of aggressive / misleading advertising in Germany.. Often implying it would be healthy for children. I wonder for years, that they get away with it. They advertise all their Kinder Chocolate products like that. The worst is "Kinder Country" - "the best of cereals and milk" with beautiful nature pictures with lots of green, grain fields in the wind and big bottles of milk. "Kinder Country - Milk cream, 5 worthy cerals and fine chocolate". | ||
|
DavidHolmes
United States22 Posts
This woman did not win $3.5 million from Nutella. In fact, that $3.5 million number is probably an outright error; every source except the one the OP links seems to say it was $3.05 million. She also did not win $2.5 million. She did not win $1 million. This is a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT, which means that Nutella was accused of misrepresenting their product to a very large number of people and therefore that very large number of people is entitled to very small damages reflecting that. All anybody won was an amount of money not even in the ballpark of what they paid for the product, because that's basically what this was about: people being entitled to their money back. Which they're not really getting: the settlement is apparently up to I'm not going to say the settlement was right. But it's absurd to suggest that this woman did anything out of greed, because there's no way she, or the other claimants, or anybody except the people on the internet misrepresenting this case would ever make any money worth mentioning. See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/nutella-lawsuit_n_1457183.html?ref=food EDIT: The real deal: https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/Home.aspx Sorry about the errors. I actually don't know how much the lawyers got, and it looks like that whole $3 million number goes to claimants. The basic gist was correct, though - sueing Nutella was not a "get rich quick" scheme for anybody. EDIT 2: She probably actually got $2000 as an incentive fee, according to this document which is linked at that official settlement site. And the lawyers got a lot. | ||
|
megapants
United States1314 Posts
On April 28 2012 10:09 Roe wrote: Still doesn't say nutella is healthy. Watch the video again, it says "a delicious hazelnut spread that i use to get my kids to eat healthy foods". Are you prepared to tell me that that means nutella is healthy? Or do you realize that the woman means she's using it to get her kids to eat foods that are healthy? yeah i could see how people could be fooled though. obviously the advertisement is stating "you can put this shit on bad tasting but healthy foods and your kids will eat it," but it never really says anything about the product itself. it doesn't mention any other benefits, and it hardly even recommends what to eat it with (the other commercial states things like whole wheat waffles and whole grain toast). i dunno, people who don't understand basic nutrition are just ignorant and deserve to be unhealthy, in my opinion. i don't know what this mother was serving with nutella, but if she thought just slapping a spread of anything, chocolate or otherwise, on to an eggo would make the kid start to shed pounds, then of course she will be stupid enough to be convinced by that commercial. because there are people like this companies should really be prepared for this type of thing by now. bad marketing plan by the company, not sure what they thought was going to happen. | ||
|
Motivate
2860 Posts
i swear people just came to this thread to complain about the american justice system and aren't actually all that interested in the case itself. | ||
|
Equity213
Canada873 Posts
Ferrero SpA is a private company, not a public corporation. Its owned by the family of the guy who started it. | ||
|
Mayhemia-
Finland58 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:57 MadProbe wrote: Now before you hate on this lady for being stupid.... see the actual advertisement first! http://www.youtube.com/embed/ThIrw_LpuRA That's fuckin sleezy advertising. I'm glad they got sued. ps how do u embed video on TL? Umm. What? How someone makes up the health claims by that ad? It wasn't even as bad as I thought it would be. I mean, hey quality ingredients, is that it? | ||
| ||
