| Forum Index > General Forum |
rotinegg
United States1719 Posts
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? | ||
flamewheel
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
People are just eh. | ||
|
thatsundowner
Canada312 Posts
| ||
|
Mattacate
59 Posts
I don't even know what to think, apart from that the idea that this woman won a court case is the beginning of the end. edit: in other news why the hell did she feed her daughter this obviously unhealthy spread without looking at the damn jar, and again WHY IS ANYONE GIVING THIS WOMAN MONEY | ||
|
`dunedain
653 Posts
Can't wait until the time when suing for free money becomes passé. If it ever happens. Again, free money after all. Also, lol at justifying the lawsuit as false advertising. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
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 you really should know better, though. it's chocolate spread. but wait, the guys trying to make money off of it are telling me it's healthy. I wonder what I should believe. What the hell is so damaging about nuttella that makes you need millions of dollars to fix??? | ||
|
cas2
22 Posts
| ||
|
cHaNg-sTa
United States1058 Posts
| ||
|
zerotol
Belgium508 Posts
For the people who think i am a flaming moron: i am a jurist, not just someone who jells from the sideline. | ||
|
FoeHamr
United States489 Posts
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 Dude its chocolate flavored. No shit its not healthy... | ||
|
monkh
United Kingdom568 Posts
| ||
|
Resent
Australia938 Posts
| ||
|
Emnjay808
United States10650 Posts
Mmmmmmm. Edit: I personally never ate the stuff. Even my sisters bought a jar once and were saying stuff like "it tastes good and its healthy". I took one look at it closely and thought it looked like crap... spread over bread. Literally, it looked like crap. Zero appeal for me to try it out. | ||
|
Marti
552 Posts
Edit : i don't think this happens only in the us, i'm pretty sure the laws regarding false advertisment are somewhat similar in other western countries. Edit 2 : Reread my post and the op. Again. Now i actually wonder : was she actually dumb ? ( i highly doubt that but ... ) Did she think she could make money off of that ? ( possible, but still .. ) Or did she think it would be a good thing to do so ( let's sue them so they get their misleading commercial off the TV ) ? | ||
|
hmmm...
632 Posts
i don't know why i have to keep listening to "AT&T, the largest 4g network in the nation" every single day on television when clearly that's just outright false. i've never seen the nutella commercial so i won't comment on that. | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
empty.bottle
685 Posts
:D | ||
|
SgtCoDFish
United Kingdom1520 Posts
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. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:49 Resent wrote: it says 2.5mil will be spread out to all the claimants, so i guess she gets the other 1mill? No... most of it will go to the lawyers. Not sure why people are complaining about the lawsuit. How else are average people supposed to get accountability from big companies? | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
| ||
|
Netsky
Australia1155 Posts
Where do you draw the line? Sales "puff" is the core of any marketing or advertising. Thankfully this didn't come to verdict. It would have been very depressing to read that judgment had the plaintiff been successful. | ||
|
Revolt
United States288 Posts
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 is actually true. I've never seen the logo, or motto, but if it said it was healthy for u, then it serves them right. It's partially relatable to the whole cigarette industry back then, saying that cigarettes actually had cures for things, and that they were healthy for you. so it does serve them right. | ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
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. | ||
|
Majynx
United States1431 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:46 cHaNg-sTa wrote: I feel like nutrition facts that are DIRECTLY on the product itself should prevent stupid lawsuits like these. One would hope so. It is sad however that many people do not know how to properly read the nutrition facts. As for the case, it's way too easy to sue people/companies in the US. | ||
|
RogerX
New Zealand3180 Posts
How dumb can that lady be. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
Today I read about a group of Native Americans that are trying to sue beer companies for alcoholism problems that their tribe has been experiencing. I certainly hope that case gets shot down fast :\ | ||
|
Netsky
Australia1155 Posts
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. No, they settled. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Ohhhhhhhhhh maaaaaaannnnnn... | ||
|
MoneyHypeMike
Canada305 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:55 RogerX wrote: Lol wow. How dumb can that lady be. Not dumb. Sounds like she's a fucking genius that made a whack of money. | ||
|
MadProbe
United States269 Posts
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? | ||
|
lodeet
United States147 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:57 MadProbe wrote: before you hate on this lady for being stupid.... see the actual advertisements first: http://www.youtube.com/embed/ThIrw_LpuRAhttp://www.youtube.com/embed/ThIrw_LpuRA that's fuckin sleezy advertising. im glad they got sued. Advertising is not sleazy at all. People misinterpret ads like this all the time because they let there imagination run wild. If you simply listen to everything it has to say is that it has a few natural ingredients and the last part about breakfast never tasting so good obviously indicates lots of sugar. It states nothing about being a healthy. | ||
|
Poffel
471 Posts
| ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
Thank god. But still, why? This is beyond the usual bull-shit justice system. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
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. | ||
|
Skullflower
United States3779 Posts
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. I've lost all faith in my country and in humanity | ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
| ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
Don't get me wrong, if the woman actually believed that, she's clearly delusional. But that doesn't even matter. Where do you draw the line? Sales "puff" is the core of any marketing or advertising. Then get rid of the core. Companies that lie should be punished for it, there's your line. It doesn't matter how obvious and transparent the lie is, they should still answer for it. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:57 TALegion wrote: Thank god. But still, why? This is beyond the usual bull-shit justice system. Not necessarily. Who knows what would have happened if it was taken to court. Nutella just wanted to get it over with quickly. They chose to settle. If they let it go to trial, they might have ended up not having to pay a single dime. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
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? | ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:57 Skullflower wrote: $2.5 million for claimants? Those people are gonna get like $6 There's probably a few people on this very forum that could file a claim, there's a webpage for it even: https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/Home.aspx It would be funny if some of the people calling this a stupid lawsuit discovered they could get some free money now. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
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. | ||
|
Geisterkarle
Germany3257 Posts
| ||
|
emjaytron
Australia544 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
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. | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
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. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:57 xDaunt wrote: 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 edit: treehugger ninja'd me. | ||
|
Poffel
471 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:59 radscorpion9 wrote: 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. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
....that or she's an idiot who got really lucky. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 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? sounds like every poptarts video i have seen. i guess they are next to be sued. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 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? where's the sleezy advertising? all the ad said was things like "breakfast never tasted this good" etc | ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
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... | ||
|
AgentChaos
United Kingdom4569 Posts
| ||
|
Marti
552 Posts
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. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:02 Roe wrote: where's the sleezy advertising? all the ad said was things like "breakfast never tasted this good" etc "especially when you smear our sugar butter all over it ... " | ||
|
Keitzer
United States2509 Posts
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.. | ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:02 Roe wrote: 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. | ||
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:57 xDaunt wrote: 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. | ||
|
Poffel
471 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:03 Marti wrote: 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. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:03 AgentChaos wrote: at least the big company loses the case take note everyone. its attitudes like this that force big companies to settle claims that have low legitimacy. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:01 Geisterkarle wrote: 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! Not really. Anyway, USA may have a reputation for crazy laws and lawsuits, but this is not one of them. | ||
|
Bibbit
Canada5377 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:02 tree.hugger wrote: 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. Yup. Relevant "Article" | ||
|
TheRPGAddict
United States1403 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:53 mindspike wrote: Read and make sense of the nutrition facts, nutrition is very easy to grasp and how to read labels. People who don't and complain otherwise deserve to be overweight/obese.No... most of it will go to the lawyers. Not sure why people are complaining about the lawsuit. How else are average people supposed to get accountability from big companies? | ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/casdce/3:2011cv00205/343346/ | ||
|
lodeet
United States147 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:05 Keitzer wrote: The "ad" ( as linked in the Yahoo article ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpNLUFA34iw 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.. Yeah balanced. Meaning banana and milk good (Even though our milk is terrible for you) and nutella plus white bread bad = balance. | ||
|
Fischbacher
Canada666 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:07 dAPhREAk wrote: take note everyone. its attitudes like this that force big companies to settle claims that have low legitimacy. Every time any individual or "class" can get any amount of money out of a company through the courts its a huge victory. Corporations have legal departments and deep pockets to mount legal defence and to do what is essentially legal bullying in the hopes of getting people to settle for less than what they deserve. A multinational losing a lawsuit is like a Korean losing to a foreigner in the GSL  | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:57 TALegion wrote: Thank god. But still, why? This is beyond the usual bull-shit justice system. You seriously don't understand why they settled, often in the US settling is done in the pretext that only the company/person is allowed to talk about the case to the press it also allows files to not be made available to the public etc. This allows companies to spin to their liking the famous McDonnals case is a perfect example of this, mcdonnalds knew that their coffee could and did case 3rd degree burns within seconds of contact with the skin, requiring skin graphing it was the negligence and physical injury that was being brought to them by hundreds of people. http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants There is a good book on popular so called frivolous lawsuit cases but i forget the name of the book, it also talks about arbitration and the good and bad of that gaining popularity. Often companies use settling as a way to spin tort reform etc because they control what gets sent to the media allowing them to spin the story to make them out as the victim, but there is no need for reform as any judge not insane would throw out stupid cases. It's funny how people think justice system lacks common sense as if judges weren't people capable of similar thought. On April 28 2012 08:53 Torte de Lini wrote: Where they hell did they say it was healthy? It's always implied that it is in the commercials i've scene. Often being put out there as better then peanut butter, although frankly non hydrogenated peanut butter is quite good in small to moderate amounts as long as you're active but that kind of peanut butter you have to stur up becuase it gets liquidly as it separates out so it's not as popular. | ||
|
Toxi78
966 Posts
| ||
|
Sverigevader
Sweden388 Posts
Nutella is just like butter but instead of just fat, it's sugar/carbs. Problem is obviously that this so called mother gave them too much... You wouldn't give your child too much butter right? | ||
|
FliedLice
Germany7494 Posts
This seems so american. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
| ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:09 TheRPGAddict wrote: Read and make sense of the nutrition facts, nutrition is very easy to grasp and how to read labels. People who don't and complain otherwise deserve to be overweight/obese. That's not what he was asking. In fact, that's not even relevant to this case. Nobody deserves to be lied to, whether they fall for it or not. And when it happens in media, the responsible side should be held accountable for it. | ||
|
EMPaThy789
New Zealand878 Posts
| ||
|
TheRPGAddict
United States1403 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:09 lodeet wrote: Skim Milk is fantastic. Idk what world you live in.Yeah balanced. Meaning banana and milk good (Even though our milk is terrible for you) and nutella plus white bread bad = balance. | ||
|
YouMake
United States262 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:12 mR.bONG789 wrote: the lady is either really really smart and realised that she could get heaps of money off this, or really really dumb and actually believed these ads so false advertisement is okay in your book? | ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:12 mR.bONG789 wrote: the lady is either really really smart and realised that she could get heaps of money off this, or really really dumb and actually believed these ads She doesn't get heaps of money. Its a class action lawsuit ...money is split between anyone who bought a can of nutella in california and files a claim. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:10 semantics wrote: It's always implied that it is in the commercials i've scene. Often being put out there as better then peanut butter, although frankly non hydrogenated peanut butter is quite good in small to moderate amounts as long as you're active but that kind of peanut butter you have to stur up becuase it gets liquidly as it separates out so it's not as popular. It's wrong to be sued because of what is "implied". There is absolutely no objective argument in this kind of decision. | ||
|
lodeet
United States147 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:12 TheRPGAddict wrote: Skim Milk is fantastic. Idk what world you live in. I live in the real world and im a nutritionist and the ad states "REDUCED FAT MILK" which is technically 2% milk. And while you may think Skim Milk is "fantastic" that has nothing to do with its nutritional value. | ||
|
lolspoon
450 Posts
| ||
|
An2quamaraN
Poland379 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
| ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:10 Fischbacher wrote: This lawsuit is for false advertisement. Ferero DID advertise Nutela as a "healthy" product. It isn't. They should be punished. I've seen a lot of frivolous and stupid lawsuits, this is not one of them. Every time any individual or "class" can get any amount of money out of a company through the courts its a huge victory. Corporations have legal departments and deep pockets to mount legal defence and to do what is essentially legal bullying in the hopes of getting people to settle for less than what they deserve. A multinational losing a lawsuit is like a Korean losing to a foreigner in the GSL Good post. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:17 Defacer wrote: Does anyone else have a craving for Nutella now? yes, on a french crepe with strawberries and bananas. | ||
|
Lemonayd
United States745 Posts
.... .... .... God I'm so dissapointed -_- | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:11 Talin wrote: That's not what he was asking. In fact, that's not even relevant to this case. Nobody deserves to be lied to, whether they fall for it or not. And when it happens in media, the responsible side should be held accountable for it. It doesn't matter if someone was lied to. The point is if the woman lost something because they were under false pretense from which she could have no other opinion. It's because of this reasoning that she should not have won. | ||
|
Fischbacher
Canada666 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. When you advertise anything, you are responsible for any claim you make, explicit or implied. Period. | ||
|
Nazeron
Canada1046 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:18 Fischbacher wrote: When you advertise anything, you are responsible for any claim you make, explicit or implied. Period. 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. | ||
|
TheRPGAddict
United States1403 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:11 Talin wrote: If someone has empirical data ( the nutrition facts ) at their fingertips and disregards them because they are ignorant or otherwise, that is their fault. Nutella can considered "healthy" depending on the context of the portion ( for example, sports drinks may be marketed as "healthy" but they are only useful if you are doing intensive physical activity and actually burn electrolytes, not drinking them on while one sits on their ass, that is their responsibility to know ) and circumstance of the individual's nutrition ( for example, someone with a high metabolism who needs to maintain weight, may go for nutella spread for some of that extra needed fat they would burn off otherwise in their exercise routine or someone recovering from an eating disorder etc ). It is purely a marketing thing, but ultimately people have the power over their own nutrition and should educate themselves on it if it is an importance to them. That's not what he was asking. In fact, that's not even relevant to this case. Nobody deserves to be lied to, whether they fall for it or not. And when it happens in media, the responsible side should be held accountable for it. TLDR; Worried about nutrition? READ THE NUTRITION FACTS PROVIDED. | ||
|
Heh_
Singapore2712 Posts
| ||
|
Fischbacher
Canada666 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:17 Roe wrote: It doesn't matter if someone was lied to. The point is if the woman lost something because they were under false pretense from which she could have no other opinion. It's because of this reasoning that she should not have won. Advertisers have a legal responsibility to tell the truth. Those that don't deserve to be punished, end of story. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote: yes, on a french crepe with strawberries and bananas. Their advertising should be, "Give your kids Nutella for breakfast. It will get them all jacked for school and it's fucking delicious." | ||
|
TheRPGAddict
United States1403 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:16 An2quamaraN wrote: She didn't actually get that much money. It was a class actions and the rest of the money went to pay the lawyers and legal services. Hahaha, omg, somebody actually did that. Btw, to people thinking she's dumb: she actually won at life and now have more money than you will ever have. Probably she is the biggest troll ever. | ||
|
Fischbacher
Canada666 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. There is a difference between putting something in a positive light and lying. Its a fine line, granted. But yes, all advertisement that is deceptive is a target for a lawsuit - obviously the amount depends on how widespread the add campaign is. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:19 Nazeron wrote: this makes me pretty angry, i mean how can you be rewarded for stupidity? there is something wrong with the legal system when shit like this can happen Nobody is being rewarded for stupidity, a company is being punished for false advertising. There may be a ton of things wrong with the US legal system, but the part that makes these lawsuits possible is the actual healthy (pardon the pun) part of it. | ||
|
lodeet
United States147 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:19 Nazeron wrote: this makes me pretty angry, i mean how can you be rewarded for stupidity? there is something wrong with the legal system when shit like this can happen 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. | ||
|
ItsMeDomLee
Canada2732 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:23 ItsMeDomLee wrote: I never ate Nutella but they always advertised it as nutritious and healthy for your kids so.... did you actually believe that? | ||
|
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. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RpNLUFA34iw Never once did they state that nutella is healthy. What they suggested is healthy is "a balanced meal, fruit, etc." Perhaps a person could infer that nutella is healthy from the ad but you should not be able to sue a company for what you happen to infer from an ad. | ||
|
Kazahk
United States385 Posts
1.buy nutella 2.feed nutella to children 3.??? 4.profit! seems legit :p | ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
1) This lady shouldn't get any kind of money. Stop paying people millions for being idiots please. 2) It reminds me how companies and advertising are so full of shit. I really want companies like this to be punished for their retarded advertisements, but it shouldn't go to some random idiot who is wasting everyone's time and making an entire legal system / country look like crap. If anything they should be forced to pay way more money for all the bs but have the money go to something useful like, i dunno, health care, starvation, poor people, whatever! Just not some random idiot who thought something that is 99 sugar fat and chemicals would be healthy for you. Jesus! | ||
|
Marti
552 Posts
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. | ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:30 PanN wrote: Nutella is easily the most overrated thing I have ever tried in my life. Disgusting. Can't believe this girl got 3.5 million dollars in damages though, thats some real bullshit right there. HOLY SHIT...for the last time. This lady did not get 3.5 million....its a class action lawsuit....there's hundreds of people filing $6 claims as we speak. | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
| ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
edit: And for purposes of clarification, I'm aware that she is not getting all the money. But still seriously? | ||
|
Blennd
United States266 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:58 Talin wrote: IF they indeed advertised Nutella as healthy, there is absolutely nothing retarded about this. In fact I find it to be an extremely satisfying outcome. Don't get me wrong, if the woman actually believed that, she's clearly delusional. But that doesn't even matter. Then get rid of the core. Companies that lie should be punished for it, there's your line. It doesn't matter how obvious and transparent the lie is, they should still answer for it. Couldn't agree more. Seems a little silly in the case of Nutella, but the many many court cases where companies get sued over potentially more harmful but much more subtle deception don't get the press. Maybe the people who find this ridiculous really like reading all the latest medical journals, but personally I'd rather just set up a system where corporations are held to a basic level of responsibility for their advertising. | ||
|
Marti
552 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:35 Hesmyrr wrote: Wish I would have thought of a idea, free one million for the win. Seriously. If there was chance at such lawsuit I know is likely to succeed, I'd take the opportunity in heartbeat no matter what others think of me. Where did you read that she got one million exactly ? Anyone who ate nutella can claim a part of the 3.5 millions, there's probably a ton of people who already filed a lawsuit to get a piece of that money. | ||
|
m00nchile
Slovenia240 Posts
| ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:31 dAPhREAk wrote: oh, better than wikipedia, i found the actual label. all of that healthy goodness~! The Nutella commercial is without a doubt misleading. They claim Nutella is part of a balanced breakfast with fruit and a glass of milk, provided you eat 2 slices of bread with 10g of Nutella each, totaling 20 grams (this was in the fine print). Considering the serving size for one serving is 57 grams, the nature of this ad is manipulative. Nutella is only part of a balanced breakfast if you eat an absurdly small amount (35% of one serving) of it, yet on the commercial they showed the bread was well covered with a thick layer of Nutella, and on top of that they claimed you could have TWO slices and still be healthy! sounds great, right? Yeah, sure she could have read the nutrition information, but believe it or not, most people are not adept at eyeing out grams of Nutealla. She probably assumed the commercial was in good faith, which it was not. | ||
|
lodeet
United States147 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:31 dAPhREAk wrote: oh, better than wikipedia, i found the actual label. all of that healthy goodness~! People will believe anything. Word of mouth is the most common source of information and it is really sad that 99% of people don't do independent research. I see people buy things all the time that are advertised as "fresh" "lite" "clean" "low fat" "diet" and so on and actually believe it's a healthy product without even reading the nutrional label. People need to wise up and realize all our nutrients can and should be obtained from the earth and its that simple. Eating raw diets is what you should do not all this processed shit full of additives and cancer causing chemicals designed to create health problems. And while I don't think it was done on purpose it is just sad that even after they realized the harm they cause there is nothing done to prevent it because it is an astoundingly large profitable industry that branches out to medical and pharmacutical industries as well. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0Dc38pB1g8o/TZjInUJTl5I/AAAAAAAAADA/-lQK19hI-Oo/s1600/SCO_Imitates_Calvin_And_Hobbes.jpg) | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
Basically, if you are selling crap and trying to portray it as not crap by throwing money at TV companies you are deceiving your customers. There's nothing morally wrong about them trying to get back at you. | ||
|
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
After spending a few weeks in China watching the advertisements there, I just got so sick of people preying on the uneducated to make quick money. I remember this one advertisement for a brain strengthening helmet. Sure most people in China know to stay away from that, but a few, especially the ones moving to cities might buy some and permanently damage the minds of their children. South Park recently had an episode on the jewelry channels and how they tried to make money off of senility. I don't want our advertising to become like that. Without these laws there would be scams everywhere. Not just on TV but also on the web, on the streets. You wouldn't be able to trust anything. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
| ||
|
drbrown
Sweden442 Posts
| ||
|
TheRPGAddict
United States1403 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:41 lodeet wrote: People will believe anything. Word of mouth is the most common source of information and it is really sad that 99% of people don't do independent research. I see people buy things all the time that are advertised as "fresh" "lite" "clean" "low fat" "diet" and so on and actually believe it's a healthy product without even reading the nutrional label. People need to wise up and realize all our nutrients can and should be obtained from the earth and its that simple. Eating raw diets is what you should do not all this processed shit full of additives and cancer causing chemicals designed to create health problems. And while I don't think it was done on purpose it is just sad that even after they realized the harm they cause there is nothing done to prevent it because it is an astoundingly large profitable industry that branches out to medical and pharmacutical industries as well. All natural and organic != healthy. Would you drink snake venom or ignore whey protein? | ||
|
yurta
Canada91 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
Do people seriously think this company deserves to be sued because they showed too much spread on a piece of toast? | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
| ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10340 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:44 Tewks44 wrote: I think people are missing the important part of the story here. The Nutella ad claimed that 2 slices of bread with Nutella, a glass of milk, and a fruit was considered a "balanced breakfast." For anyone who thinks "balanced breakfast" means anything but "healthy" then please explain what else "balanced breakfast" could be interpreted as. The problem is the 2 slices of bread can only have 10 grams of Nutella each to be considered part of a "balanced breakfast." Considering the ad depicted two slices of bread covered in Nutella (thus implying the image was the "balanced breakfast" described), yet one serving size if 57 grams, it seems that this commercial was intentionally manipulative. I personally thinks this is a ridiculous lawsuit, but you gotta at least see the other side of the argument. I agree. The manipulation of language and common association ("balanced breakfast" ==> healthy) is obvious. Nutella is tasty shit, but it's basically garbage, and probably shouldn't be consumed by adults or children. | ||
|
Equity213
Canada873 Posts
~end sarcasm | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:49 liberal wrote: They never once used the word healthy. They never made a single health claim in the ad. My god they even put in print on the ad that you should have a small amount as part of a balanced breakfast, and we still claim there is false advertising somewhere? Isn't the whole purpose of fine print to avoid frivolous lawsuits like this? Do people seriously think this company deserves to be sued because they showed too much spread on a piece of toast? I believe that a company should be sued for as long as there is even the smallest, most convoluted argument that can make a case for it. Especially when it comes to advertising. It basically serves the purpose of cleaning up the trash and forcing if not honesty, then a situation where people who write ads will measure the words they use and triple-check the statements they make 50 times over before committing it to make sure there's nothing false or misleading that could be read from it. There's no drawbacks to being as strict as possible about it, and there are plenty of benefits to it. So I see no reason why they should be cut any slack. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:53 Equity213 wrote: Anything that takes money from big evil corporations and generally makes like miserable for a business man is good. I dont really care about anything else. I just like seeing rich people suffer. ~end sarcasm justice for all, except those we dont like! User was warned for this post | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote: justice for all, except those we dont like! Companies aren't people. | ||
|
lodeet
United States147 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:43 obesechicken13 wrote: False advertising is stupid. Glad to see nutella take a hit although it tastes good. It's not like all the money goes to the lady either. They do 2.5 million in damages to society, they pay the price. After spending a few weeks in China watching the advertisements there, I just got so sick of people preying on the uneducated to make quick money. I remember this one advertisement for a brain strengthening helmet. Sure most people in China know to stay away from that, but a few, especially the ones moving to cities might buy some and permanently damage the minds of their children. South Park recently had an episode on the jewelry channels and how they tried to make money off of senility. I don't want our advertising to become like that. You don't think we are already there? The whole purpose of adversiting is to get people to buy your product. Ads have been misleading for a really long time. It's a sales tatic. If you look closely at most ads they don't actually tell you anything important about the product but rather mislead you into creating your own ideas about what the product is. All the real important details are withheld. They are usually available too but most people are too lazy to do the research to find out the truth. The point of adversiting is to make a product look or seem desirable not to give facts. To trick you into think you are being patriotic by buying this product to establish a certain "status" since our whole social system is based on your "status". You're no one if your not in debt driving the nicest car owning designer brands and living in a dream home. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
These are the types of commercials I see for nutella all the time here They are always marketed to children as a breakfast meal, which is just ridiculous and stupid. I am kind of glad they got sued, but I wish the money went somewhere other than into the pockets of dumb parents | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
lol. in america, corporations are treated the same as people for lawsuits. boo yah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood | ||
|
Skullflower
United States3779 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:52 PassiveAce wrote: Yo I eat nutella almost every day, can I get some of this money even if I know its not healthy? If you want at most $20 sure why not | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:57 dAPhREAk wrote: lol. in america, corporations are treated the same as people for lawsuits. Yes, well. Plenty of things I could say about that, off-topic though. | ||
|
Herper
501 Posts
| ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
she says this for example, "this isnt fattening because it had 0 grams of fat" if you have any knowledge of nutrition, you will see how stupid that statement really is. | ||
|
Teoman
Norway382 Posts
I don't think it is good that people become millionares of off basicly being dumb/slightly clever by just suing something obvious and i think that is something that the USA have to get through all of that "we can't change the law because someone in the far past said that it should be like that" stuff and start changing laws according to how the world works today. However, what i only hate about todays consumer society is the blatant lying and exagerating. The luring and the exploitation of fine arts like humour, just to sell a product or a service! I am sick of companys doing this, and i think it is fair that they feel the hammer of justice when they once in a while get caught with it. I want cleat objective advertising. I want to know what i am actually seeing instead of some over happy family eating burgers at mcdonalds, or drinking coca cola. I like the freedom in our society to buy what we want, but i don't like every company taking advantage of this freedom to use every means neccesary to make us buy their product, no matter the qualityor cost! Companys should advertise their product for what it is, wether it is unhealthy or not. And not use every luring tactic in the book to lure people into buying there product only. (slightly (quite) under the vodka influence while writing this, still think it turned out good :D will edit in the morning if i see a need for it) | ||
|
xrapture
United States1644 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:57 floor exercise wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl22YOOCreE These are the types of commercials I see for nutella all the time here They are always marketed to children as a breakfast meal, which is just ridiculous and stupid. I am kind of glad they got sued, but I wish the money went somewhere other than into the pockets of dumb parents holy hell. that is the most misleading and blatant false advertising I've seen in a long time. "Something I can feel good serving my kids" lol wtf... | ||
|
eFonSG
United States255 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:35 Marti wrote: THIS THIS And finally this : 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. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:58 Herper wrote: You should blame the system. Nothing she did was wrong. No, the system works fine in this case. Funniest part is that the article only creates additional negative publicity for their product. | ||
|
Blennd
United States266 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:49 liberal wrote: They never once used the word healthy. They never made a single health claim in the ad. My god they even put in print on the ad that you should have a small amount as part of a balanced breakfast, and we still claim there is false advertising somewhere? Isn't the whole purpose of fine print to avoid frivolous lawsuits like this? Do people seriously think this company deserves to be sued because they showed too much spread on a piece of toast? Yeah we should make false advertising laws more lax. I mean, I'm sure corporations will be reasonable about it, right? | ||
|
Mr. Black
United States470 Posts
This version of the commercial very clearly claims nutella is healthy. It is just as deceptive as a bait and switch. | ||
|
pt
United States813 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:45 Roe wrote: What the hell is so damaging about nuttella that makes you need millions of dollars to fix??? fundraising for that time machine so she can prevent herself from buying it of course | ||
|
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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CqU7gQNTog 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? | ||
|
jobber123rd
United States501 Posts
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. | ||
|
Marti
552 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. 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 ? | ||
|
LordSubtle
Canada25 Posts
| ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:57 xDaunt wrote: 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: 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. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 28 2012 10:40 TALegion wrote: 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. | ||
|
Nancial
197 Posts
+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 | ||
|
ManyCookies
1164 Posts
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. | ||
|
Areon
United States273 Posts
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. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 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. 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. | ||
|
crayhasissues
United States682 Posts
| ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
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. | ||
|
aka_star
United Kingdom1546 Posts
**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 | ||
|
Maxtor
United Kingdom273 Posts
| ||
|
nimbus99
Canada194 Posts
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 | ||
|
Shinobi1982
1605 Posts
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. | ||
|
RezChi
Canada2368 Posts
| ||
|
OrangeApples
137 Posts
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. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
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: 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 Yes, hilarious I'm sure. All fun and games until it's your genitals that need a skin graft eh? | ||
|
Marti
552 Posts
On April 28 2012 10:40 TALegion wrote: 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. 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. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
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. | ||
|
Le French
France782 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
does someone deserve money for believing everything their told like an idiot? no. if they were to be fined ive got no problem with that, but i dont see why this money should go to people for being stupid. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On April 28 2012 11:05 Le French wrote: People would sue for anything in the United States. This reminds me of a case before where a woman sued McDonalds for getting burned of hot coffee. Come on. As pissed off as your comment makes me, I will show some restraint and ask you to please research that McDonalds case, ot at least go back a page or two to understand what actually happened. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11133 Posts
F YOU PURCHASED NUTELLA IN CALIFORNIA BETWEEN AUGUST 1, 2009 AND JANUARY 23, 2012, OR IN ANY OTHER STATE BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2008 AND FEBRUARY 3, 2012, YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/Home.aspx lmao. | ||
|
Marti
552 Posts
On April 28 2012 11:05 Le French wrote: People would sue for anything in the United States. This reminds me of a case before where a woman sued McDonalds for getting burned of hot coffee. Come on. For the fifth time, the woman got 3RD DEGREE BURNS, SHE NEEDED SKIN GRAFT. God people... | ||
|
Kar98
Australia924 Posts
| ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
Maxd11
United States680 Posts
| ||
|
Timurid
Guyana (French)656 Posts
| ||
|
Mawi
Sweden4365 Posts
| ||
|
MadJack
Peru357 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? Are you insane ? How is that false advertising ? they aren not saying its HEALTHY, what they are saying that it has QUALITY INGREDIENTS, like nuts, milk and coco, and that it helps her kids start their morning. Ofc it would its sugar, ofc it would pump them up, And so ppl dont start talking on me im gonna take the work of write everything thats said in the commercial: "Breakfast ? in this house? in the morning i can use all the help i can get, thats why i love nutella, a delicious (haze) spread thats perfect on multi-grain toast and even home made waffles. Its a great an easy way to get my family a breakfast they want to eat, and nutella is made with simple quality ingredients like (hazzle) nuts, (skim) milk, and a (?) of cocoa, they love the taste and i feel good that they are ready to tackle their day. nutella, breakfast never tasted this good" All i see here is a statement that nutella tastes good, its made with quality ingredients =/= healthy, and that they are ready to "tackle" their day, ofc anyone would if u give them chocolate=sugar=tons of energy. This kind of thing is why i feel happy i dont live in the US. The other day i saw that once a guy died while stealing in a house, and the owner had to pay the robbers family a compensation. Really ridicolous. | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
Clear misleading advertising deserves punishment. | ||
|
Bippzy
United States1466 Posts
On April 28 2012 10:39 LordSubtle wrote: the planet needs natural selection haha Yeah maybe. This case is ok as long as the woman doesnt think she deserves the money she sued for. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
zwert
13 Posts
| ||
|
Mawi
Sweden4365 Posts
3d degree burn must hurt tho, fucking hell from a coffe thought it was rare | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On April 28 2012 11:17 Danglars wrote: More reason for litigation reform. Set standards for lower maximum liability for a company. Never has a single sentence made me feel more sadness. I went from a massive high and <3's for TL calling out the McDonald's coffe case misconceptions to the lows of this logic. | ||
|
CuriousMoose
United States73 Posts
On April 28 2012 11:13 Maxd11 wrote: This lady just stole a million dollars and got away with it. She seems fairly smart to me, I wish I had thought of this and been smart enough to realize it would work. Again AD NAUSEUM, the most she would've gotten was $20. It was a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. On April 28 2012 11:21 screamingpalm wrote: Never has a single sentence made me feel more sadness. I went from a massive high and <3's for TL calling out the McDonald's coffe case misconceptions to the lows of this logic. Seconded. It's funny how people say they cannot be misled by advertising when they're actually misled by the media over the importance of lawsuits like the coffee case. Sigh | ||
|
.Aar
2177 Posts
| ||
|
LilClinkin
Australia667 Posts
| ||
|
-KarmA
United States353 Posts
You know what? Nevermind | ||
|
Ksquared
United States1748 Posts
| ||
|
Mambo
Denmark1338 Posts
Also another know fact: If you eat your pizza fast you take in less calories! | ||
|
Marti
552 Posts
On April 28 2012 11:21 screamingpalm wrote: Never has a single sentence made me feel more sadness. I went from a massive high and <3's for TL calling out the McDonald's coffe case misconceptions to the lows of this logic. Thirded ( does that even exist lol ? ) As someone previously said, this thread just goes to showing who is capable of properly reading the op and using his brains and who isn't. On April 28 2012 11:24 CuriousMoose wrote: It's funny how people say they cannot be misled by advertising when they're actually misled by the media over the importance of lawsuits like the coffee case. Sigh Seconded, except for the "funny" part. While i can see the irony it just makes me really depressed somehow. Like how i just noticed the huffingtonpost doesn't actually lets you post in their comment section. I tried but it said something like " the comment will be reviewd and posted when approved ". It's just really sad. It's like, now i can see why it's so easy to manipulate people, and i'm not even talking about how feasible it is, it's just that, when i look at how fucked people are sometimes i can totally see myself manipulating them as my government / corporations do should i be in their spot. | ||
|
ferencziffra
Bulgaria29 Posts
| ||
|
FaCE_1
Canada6163 Posts
| ||
|
Newbistic
China2912 Posts
If you actually watch the advertisement it's clear that Nutella is trying to make people believe that the product is part of a healthy breakfast, when in actuality Nutella is the only item in the breakfast that isn't healthy. There's clear intent to mislead. This advertisement is a lot like the soft drink 7-up's ad campaign a few years back where they had people pulling cans of 7-up out of the earth as if it's some kind of healthy fruit or vegetable because they were using "all natural" ingredients, even though the company did not actually change a single ingredient in their soda. It's good for us consumers when companies are sued for trying to misrepresent their product and selling their products as something they're not. | ||
|
vol_
Australia1608 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:53 mindspike wrote: No... most of it will go to the lawyers. Not sure why people are complaining about the lawsuit. How else are average people supposed to get accountability from big companies? They should be held accountable for doing something wrong. The average person is fucking stupid. | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
Second, all advertizing is false anyway. Axe doesnt give you women? Sue. Nike doesn't make you a soccer star? Sue. Razer mice don't make you win tournaments? Sue. You just cannot sell anything with truthful advertizing. Ridiculous claims are an advertizing tactic for gaining attention, even though you don't expect anyone to believe them. In short, ridiculous lawsuit, ridiculous outcome, ridiculous that this is legal. | ||
|
Weebem-Na
United States221 Posts
| ||
|
Femari
United States2900 Posts
| ||
|
DavidHolmes
United States22 Posts
On April 28 2012 11:50 ferencziffra wrote: The world (i.e. humanity) is so retarded, I want to kill myself. You wouldn't suppose a physical object could be a negative number in count, but when it comes to this fucked up woman's braincell count, oh it definitely can. Same goes for whoever the fuck decided in her favour. Nobody decided in her favor. The complaint was settled, which is to say Nutella and the plaintiffs agreed on Nutella paying the money outside of court. | ||
|
.Sic.
Korea (South)497 Posts
| ||
|
Insomni7
667 Posts
| ||
|
DropTester
Australia608 Posts
It should be up to the consumer to really take note of the nutritional information that is on every packet. With obesity being such a prevalent issue, you would think people would have taken notice and actually read these labels. | ||
|
red_
United States8474 Posts
Honey Nut Cheerios even claims it 'can lower cholesterol' which is very technically true; if all I consumed were the Cheerios I would drastically reduce my cholesterol, and also very likely contract type II diabetes, anemia, numerous vitamin deficiencies, etc. Is this the next lawsuit? Who among us will sacrifice a child by feeding them nothing but Frosted Mini Wheats until they become horribly ill, then blame the advertisement that it is 'healthy' for kids; the commercial even shows it helping children study(so you should feed it to them as a snack as well as breakfast!). | ||
|
Femari
United States2900 Posts
On April 28 2012 12:05 .Sic. wrote: y'all are calling her stupid, but who just got 3.5 million bucks? exactly. On April 28 2012 12:05 Insomni7 wrote: People seem to use the word "dumb" a lot to describe this woman when she is obviously an extremely cunning individual. She just won a million dollars, I think congratulations are in order. You're both dumb for not reading up on the suit. She won nothing. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On April 28 2012 12:00 Shikyo wrote: Well let's first of all compare Nutella to butter as that's what you'd use in its place... Nutella has about half the calories for a similiar portion. Second, all advertizing is false anyway. Axe doesnt give you women? Sue. Nike doesn't make you a soccer star? Sue. Razer mice don't make you win tournaments? Sue. You just cannot sell anything with truthful advertizing. Ridiculous claims are an advertizing tactic for gaining attention, even though you don't expect anyone to believe them. In short, ridiculous lawsuit, ridiculous outcome, ridiculous that this is legal. the difference is false advertising only applies to statements of fact (think something that can be objectively proven), whereas puffery (subjective statements, opinions) is allowed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery | ||
|
midftw
Canada170 Posts
On April 28 2012 11:52 FaCE_1 wrote: I was eating 2x nutella toast a day for about 10 years. Turn out i'm not fat and all. i used to eat nutella a lot also and my body fat was never higher than 3% the key is to do exercise when you eat sugar however, I don't like the fact there is coconut oil in the nutella. that stuff is deadly in long term use. guess ill try to search for something similar without coconut oil. | ||
|
Game
3191 Posts
| ||
|
red_
United States8474 Posts
On April 28 2012 12:14 songohan wrote: i used to eat nutella a lot also and my body fat was never higher than 3%. Yes, yes it was. You are clearly not aware of just how lean 3% bodyfat is. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 28 2012 11:21 screamingpalm wrote: Never has a single sentence made me feel more sadness. I went from a massive high and <3's for TL calling out the McDonald's coffe case misconceptions to the lows of this logic. The second I start a company, my own small business, I take on my shoulders the liability of several millions of dollars. This represents an immense burden on companies beyond the limits of reason. My product can cause kids to get fat if eaten in excess, and suddenly I am forced to dole out 3.5 million dollars in a hearbeat? I need to start a legal fund for shouldering this burden, which might come from so many sources, and can be expected in no real way. A single story does not an argument make, to be sure. God knows we've had enough legislation crafted from single cases that have done all sorts of ill to the USA. + Show Spoiler [For comparison] + Sears, 6.2 million, discrimination Take any number of cases for medical liability reform, though perhaps more of a state issue This issue ... you can sue a company and win for making you ... fat? 3.5 million dollars? I mean, cmon! 2.8 mil McDonalds coffee Still a hot topic Perception Frivolous Lawsuits / Tort Reform Malpractice Insurance These are here just to illuminate the full nature of some ills that bring up questions of tort reform. I mean, you gotta love class action lawsuits. Lawyers get a load of money, your average claimant ... not so much. I get what you're saying TL, and I've called to the carpet my fair share of, "Woman commits suicide for medical bills ergo universal health care is necessary right now." Just the shear minutiae of what a company must list on its products to be protected against every specter of a lawsuit is astounding, to say the least. If it makes you fat or if it could give you a burn watch out, because my lawyer will be calling! | ||
|
firehand101
Australia3152 Posts
| ||
|
Happylime
United States133 Posts
So, question to Red are you sure his body fat was never above 3%, maybe he works out all the time hmm? | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
On April 28 2012 12:18 red_ wrote: Yes, yes it was. You are clearly not aware of just how lean 3% bodyfat is. lol 3% BF. he does not have any idea what 3% BF lol protip: professional bodybuilders come into a comp at like 4-5%....and only hold it for a few hours On April 28 2012 12:22 Happylime wrote: So hazelnut spreads aren't good for me? That's disappointing. So, question to Red are you sure his body fat was never above 3%, maybe he works out all the time hmm? if u were always 3% u would die LOL heres like 4-5% hahaha | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On April 28 2012 12:22 Happylime wrote: So hazelnut spreads aren't good for me? That's disappointing. So, question to Red are you sure his body fat was never above 3%, maybe he works out all the time hmm? Professional bodybuilders in competition time after a heavy carb cycling competition diet are at perhaps those fat %s, but more likely around 4-6. You don't get 3% bodyfat with just exercise. 8% is around when you have muscles clearly showing and ripped abs(or look like an anorexic skeleton if you don't have the muscle) and that's the lowest I'd believe because you need to do some really special shit to get it below that. | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
On April 28 2012 10:22 DavidHolmes wrote: I hate to make my first post on TL for something as silly as this, but the state of this thread is agonizingly bad. Half of the posts completely misunderstand and/or misrepresent this story, and most of the rest are just taking for granted that they're correct. Around 5% of the posts are pointing out reality, and most people are ignoring them. 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. She probably didn't even win enough to pay the gas money she would have needed to fight this case, nor did anybody else. Nobody won millions of dollars, or even noteworthy amounts of money except the lawyers, 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. Great first post that should get more attention. | ||
|
ferencziffra
Bulgaria29 Posts
On April 28 2012 12:03 DavidHolmes wrote: Nobody decided in her favor. The complaint was settled, which is to say Nutella and the plaintiffs agreed on Nutella paying the money outside of court. OP says 'she won' which I don't understand as 'settling'. Anyway for all I care she did indeed win if the company had to shell out the big bucks to whoever the fuck they had to. Actually I don't care at all. I don't give a fuck neither about Nutella, nor the stupid woman or her child. You see, the problem with this world is that people pretend to give a fuck. And they don't. Most of the time. | ||
|
Licmyobelisk
Philippines3682 Posts
| ||
|
rfoster
United States1005 Posts
All around kind of stupid. | ||
|
red_
United States8474 Posts
On April 28 2012 12:22 Happylime wrote: So hazelnut spreads aren't good for me? That's disappointing. So, question to Red are you sure his body fat was never above 3%, maybe he works out all the time hmm? I expected to have to explain this, so I will. Even without discussing bodybuilders which have quickly been alluded to(it is a solid 'group' of evidence to use though). Your brain is approximately 2% of your body weight, and is comprised of approximately 75% fat. So even if you had literally no fat in the rest of your body, you are already up to 1.5% body fat. Unfortunately for that 3% number, fat is also 100% essential to other life functions, such as having skin that isn't dead, having organs that work, having bone marrow, and creating essential hormones. All totaled, the average person REQUIRES between 3-5% body fat to function. A person can dip below this amount for short periods of time(and will certainly be under distress doing so), but will quickly suffer some very serious effects if they do not feed their body fat. Also, even staying just above the essential level of body fat is dangerous, because your brain may be a 'greedy' brain, and the first function to be reduced from a fat shortage is brain function. All things considered, his statement of 'never above 3%' not only implies that he was at 3%(an extremely unlikely claim for anyone, ever, at any point in their life) but that he was under it, and for an extended period of time. I hope this off topic tangent was informative. The vast majority of people have NO CLUE what their body fat percentage is, and are terrible at guessing it/others visually. Ten percent body fat is really quite lean, and would look very impressive on even a slightly muscled physique at the beach. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
There was no way to tell they werent going to do all the crap they promissed! | ||
|
DavidHolmes
United States22 Posts
On April 28 2012 12:29 MassHysteria wrote: Great first post that should get more attention. Thanks for that. I'm embarrassed to say I was wrong, though. After reading the settlement, it looks like she will receive as much as $2000 as an "Incentive Award" out of that settlement fund. Which is still not a large amount of money relative to the amount of work involved in fighting the case, but it's a lot more than $20. The lawyers in her case will also recieve a whopping $3 million which is separate from the $2.5 million nationwide settlement fund. There's also a California state case brought by other plaintiffs which is where the other $0.55 million comes from, and the lawyers in that case will get $0.9 million. The fascinating thing to me is that all the facts and details are there in the court documents (all at the settlement website), but hundreds of people (including me) posted in this thread without reading any of them... | ||
|
BoondockVeritas
United States191 Posts
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. If you're referencing the woman suing McDonald's because she burned herself with coffee then that's different from this case in OP. The woman in that case had severe second and third degree burns and needed skin graft surgeries. She was only suing for the medical expenses that her insurance company wouldn't cover. McDonald's denied her that and offered only $2-3k. Later she won two days sales of coffee. I know what you're saying about the eh people though | ||
|
phiinix
United States1169 Posts
| ||
|
Carson
Canada820 Posts
| ||
|
Chunhyang
Bangladesh1389 Posts
I know we all want to hold food producers to the highest standards of integrity and honesty in all aspects of the business, but this is too much!! Isn't there some kind of rule that says that the usual exaggerations in trade or business are not to be considered false or fraudulent? | ||
|
EdenPLusDucky
571 Posts
| ||
|
Juliette
United States6003 Posts
its so good T_T at least that means some people get rebates to buy more nutella? I could probably take advantage... On April 28 2012 08:59 mindspike wrote: There's probably a few people on this very forum that could file a claim, there's a webpage for it even: https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/Home.aspx It would be funny if some of the people calling this a stupid lawsuit discovered they could get some free money now. Thanks for posting the link | ||
|
BoondockVeritas
United States191 Posts
On April 28 2012 13:18 Juliette wrote: why would you want to hurt nutella though its so good T_T at least that means some people get rebates to buy more nutella? I could probably take advantage... Thanks for posting the link Some people just want to watch the world burn.. | ||
|
xtruder
Afghanistan135 Posts
| ||
|
ahw
Canada1099 Posts
per tbsp: 100 calories, 6 grams of fat (60 calories) and 11 g carbohydrate (40, without the 4 counting as fibre), and 1 g protein @ 4 calories. Ingredients are essentially sugar, hazelnuts, cocoa and skim milk and some minor flavorings. Kraft Natural Peanut Butter per tbsp: 90 calories from 7 g of fat (70 calories) and 3 g carbohydrate (12 calories) and 4 grams of protein (16 calories). Ingredients are sugar, peanuts (instead of hazelnuts), vegetable oil and preservatives and flavorings. How about a nice healthy glass of milk! 250 ml, 120 calories, 12 g sugar, 8g protein peanut butter companies market the same way nutella does: cheap, quick, "healthy" breakfast that kids love. Which is true. kids like peanut butter and nutella because its really delicious. And getting kids to eat breakfast, period, may be more important. is peanut butter healthier? i suppose it is 10 less calories with marginally less sugar per 2 tbsp... but that all adds up to a quarter to MAYBE half a can of soda per day. Or, if you prefer, a little cup of milk. Should we sue the milk companies for promoting milk as a staple in our every day diet? We could cut that extra 5g fat and all that extra sugar... and milk is a much bigger business than nutella. hmmm... bottom line: this is ridiculous and most arguments in this thread seem to be based on hearsay and not on any nutritional foundation. ultimately, aside from minor (10g per day) protein fluctuations, nutella seems like a pretty legit options for a few hundred calories in the morning. plus, its ridiculously tasty. | ||
|
Rfaulker
United States53 Posts
But there's no fucking way she deserves 3.5 million. | ||
|
v3chr0
United States856 Posts
Right now in New York, there's been an increase in "car accidents" AKA people walking into cars. Happened to my brother recently, didn't harm the woman but she claimed she had a broken leg, weeks later the insurance co. informs him it was false, etc. In the Winter people walk around and slip on ice, or pretend to, for easy money. Some people really like to take advantage of things. | ||
|
billyX333
United States1360 Posts
| ||
|
sc14s
United States5052 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? greedy dumb people get their way, too much of the time in the current legal system imo =S | ||
|
logikly
United States329 Posts
| ||
|
theBlues
El Salvador638 Posts
| ||
|
Chunhyang
Bangladesh1389 Posts
On April 28 2012 10:22 DavidHolmes wrote: I hate to make my first post on TL for something as silly as this, but the state of this thread is agonizingly bad. Half of the posts completely misunderstand and/or misrepresent this story, and most of the rest are just taking for granted that they're correct. Around 5% of the posts are pointing out reality, and most people are ignoring them. 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. She probably didn't even win enough to pay the gas money she would have needed to fight this case, nor did anybody else. Nobody won millions of dollars, or even noteworthy amounts of money except the lawyers, 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. Please. Put this in the OP. The woman isn't in it for the money. No one is. | ||
|
Heweree
United Kingdom497 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:50 Marti wrote: Edit : i don't think this happens only in the us, i'm pretty sure the laws regarding false advertisment are somewhat similar in other western countries. It happens only in the US. In other countries she certainly wouldn't have got 3.5 millions. 3.5 FUCKING MILLIONS. ... User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
DavidHolmes
United States22 Posts
On April 28 2012 13:53 Chunhyang wrote: Please. Put this in the OP. The woman isn't in it for the money. No one is. Thanks... I did make a mistake and edit that post since then, though: according to the settlement document, she does actually get $2000 in the end as an incentive fee, so it's not nothing. And the lawyers actually get millions of dollars on top of that, so somebody's in it for the money, though it's probably not her. EDIT: Actually, if somebody's going to put anything anywhere or quote things, they should just look at the numbers from the settlement docs at that link: * Cash settlement amount: $3.05 million dollars ($2.5 million from nationwide suit, $550,000 from California suit) * This is distributed amonst claimants, with up to $20 for somebody who bought five jars of Nutella * Up to $300,000 can be used to set up that website * Up to $2000 may go to the woman who filed the suit * Injunctive Fees (to the lawyers): $3.9 million dollars ($3 million from the nationwide suit, $900,000 from the California suit) So in total, Ferrero will need to pay around $6.95 million dollars, but at most $2000 of it goes to the woman people are berating in this thread. Most of it goes to lawyers. The million-dollar numbers people keep saying the plaintiff is going to get are complete nonsense. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
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. | ||
|
ahw
Canada1099 Posts
edit: i'm not saying theres anything wrong with milk. i'm saying the advertising is similar in that collectivity consumers think milk is healthy, despite it being high in sugar and fat (much like nutella). | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On April 28 2012 14:07 ahw wrote: I still don't get why nutella is being labelled with "omg false advertising"... here's a milk commercial from up here in canada: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwB4DbKWrhU edit: i'm not saying theres anything wrong with milk. i'm saying the advertising is similar in that collectivity consumers think milk is healthy, despite it being high in sugar and fat (much like nutella). Would never work out in the US milk is "healthy" and varies in healthiness which is strongly backs by the dairy lobby which would prevent people from thinking otherwise, unlike smoking which is so obviously bad for you obscuring things and spinning it is one way to get around it. The truth in high calcium intake is good and bad for you, and the high saturated fat in milk helps lead to heart disease so it's just in the middle, calcium is recommended for bone health but so is alot of other things and you can get calcium from certain leafy green things that probably better overall for you without risking lactose intolerance, but the dairy lobby makes sure that one is associated with the other, i mean people think "got milk" in the US they think bone strength they don't necessarily sell it on overall health. | ||
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
lawsuits like this are riddicolous, the day people pass a common sense bill (which will allow to judge to decide) things like this will stop hurting my brain edit: not berating the woman, if I could sue a company like that and gain money I'd do it | ||
|
teknotrance
61 Posts
| ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
On April 28 2012 14:45 teknotrance wrote: ok. this is why business owners outsources because of stupid americans. I mean seriously, they sue whatever they see fit. Mcdonalds, and now this one? really? REALLY? i live in the u.s, but THANK GOD i dont have american genes. They are slowing seeping into you, don't you worry. | ||
|
TheAntZ
Israel6248 Posts
feeling angry? mistreated? or just downright bored? no problem! just pick someone at random, and throw a lawsuit at them! Is it retarded? frivolous? No problem! You'll still become a millionaire! | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On April 28 2012 14:45 teknotrance wrote: ok. this is why business owners outsources because of stupid americans. I mean seriously, they sue whatever they see fit. Mcdonalds, and now this one? really? REALLY? i live in the u.s, but THANK GOD i dont have american genes. You accuse American's of being stupid and yet you miss the post just a few posts above detailing exactly one why you are wrong. | ||
|
Phenny
Australia1435 Posts
Not the companies fault you're too dumb and irresponsible to take a look at the fucking label to see how nutritous it is / isnt. | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
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. | ||
|
IAttackYou
United States330 Posts
| ||
|
nakedsurfer
Canada500 Posts
| ||
|
Eiii
United States2566 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44017 Posts
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? | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
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. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
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. | ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 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. 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 ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpNLUFA34iw 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? | ||
|
nakedsurfer
Canada500 Posts
On April 28 2012 15:05 1Eris1 wrote: 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. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On April 28 2012 15:17 nakedsurfer wrote: 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. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
kineSiS-
Korea (South)1068 Posts
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? | ||
|
Aberu
United States968 Posts
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. It's funny when people mention the hot coffee case, since it shows they don't know that much about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants 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. Such a horrible example to bring up flippantly. | ||
|
protoss22
United States41 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? 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. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
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 15:07 semantics wrote: 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. | ||
|
nakedsurfer
Canada500 Posts
On April 28 2012 15:22 1Eris1 wrote: 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. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On April 28 2012 15:34 nakedsurfer wrote: 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 Also the coffee is hot part + Show Spoiler + 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. | ||
|
Smat
United States301 Posts
| ||
|
Humposaurus
Netherlands86 Posts
| ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
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?!!! | ||
|
Hall0wed
United States8486 Posts
| ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
| ||
|
Netsky
Australia1155 Posts
| ||
|
Avelii
Switzerland18 Posts
Also, read the nutrition labels on it? It's sad, that people actually get money for such things... And waste other peoples time (judges etc.) which could be spent on actually important stuff. | ||
|
Arush
Canada80 Posts
| ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:40 flamewheel wrote: Coffee is hot. This should be regarded as a gaffe, believe it or not. People like to make fun of the lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled scalding hot coffee on her lap. The fact of the matter is that the coffee was so negligently hot that it actually burned her vagina straight through to the pelvic bone. Too graphic? Well that's what she endured due to McDonald's mistake. She didn't even get any money in the end, so it's pretty crude to deride her experience. Spilling coffee from a restaurant should result in some sharp pain at most. I think it's reasonable to sue the SHIT out of a place that serves a product capable of melting flesh to the bone without explicit warning. If they wanted to serve it that hot they could've at least included a "CAUTION: Don't spill or this shit will melt your flesh! It's that hot and good!" sticker on their cups | ||
|
Kazahk
United States385 Posts
The companies want money, its a fault in our human psychology. We cant blame people for being human, at the same time we cant blame some one for being dumb. It was their fault and they should take full responsabilty for it; but still its not their fault if you get what im trying to say, sort of like a person who was brutally abused as a child and grew up into a phsycopathic murder. They killed people but it wasnt their fault it was the parents. They abused and neglected their child and now their dead. Said crazy killer will be put to trail and is responsible but you cant call say it was directly his fault that he killed his parents. Same thing here with nuttella woman, she was very naive and not smart like, but it was her parents that neglected/ poorly disciplined, never taught her to think etc. But ill go even further and say what if it wasn't her parents but the Government who put subliminal messages on the TV who's parents set no limit to as they were alcoholics because of their own child hood problems, who parents had their own who's great grand parents who's cousin was a child molester etc. etc. etc. My main point was to say were all messed up people, and the next person is more twisted and evil in their own way. WE are some how were involved in this sad sad world we live in today and unless we realize that and stop going to either side red or side blue, we will never progress and shall be feeding vanilla gummy bear spread to our children thinking its healthy because vanilla is a bean. Let us accept that were in a way both right. She was dumb and should have looked at the nutrition panel, but at the same time the companies are evil greedy bastards. some where between black and white is gray, ...and we must accept that. (im still down for the vanilla gummy bear spread, shit sounds DOPE! :D) | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
|
renlynn
United States276 Posts
On April 28 2012 16:21 FallDownMarigold wrote: This should be regarded as a gaffe, believe it or not. People like to make fun of the lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled scalding hot coffee on her lap. The fact of the matter is that the coffee was so negligently hot that it actually burned her vagina straight through to the pelvic bone. Too graphic? Well that's what she endured due to McDonald's mistake. She didn't even get any money in the end, so it's pretty crude to deride her experience. Spilling coffee from a restaurant should result in some sharp pain at most. I think it's reasonable to sue the SHIT out of a place that serves a product capable of melting flesh to the bone without explicit warning. If they wanted to serve it that hot they could've at least included a "CAUTION: Don't spill or this shit will melt your flesh! It's that hot and good!" sticker on their cups looks like about 40 degrees too hot http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm I remember reading somewhere this was because a lot of their customers didn't get around to their coffee until much later (driving on the road or whatever) so they overheated to make it keep its temperature longer. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
We consumers are constantly told to take responsibility for our actions, yet this type of deceptive advertising and other shady business practices are accepted for some reason. Barely even an outcry when peanut butter companies were knowingly shipping product contaminated with salmonella in order to save the bottom line. And still, people eagerly rally around agendas to shut down government agencies such as the FDA! Giving up rights to and/or putting limits on litigation through tort reform while waiting for unfettered capitalism to run its course doesn't seem like the best option to me. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 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? If she is retarded then why did Nuttela lose the lawsuit? There were obviously some false advertising involved here. Personally I hate companies that lie to us more then people suing them. | ||
|
horsebanger
141 Posts
 | ||
|
Man with a Plan
United States401 Posts
On April 28 2012 16:21 FallDownMarigold wrote: This should be regarded as a gaffe, believe it or not. People like to make fun of the lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled scalding hot coffee on her lap. The fact of the matter is that the coffee was so negligently hot that it actually burned her vagina straight through to the pelvic bone. Too graphic? Well that's what she endured due to McDonald's mistake. She didn't even get any money in the end, so it's pretty crude to deride her experience. Spilling coffee from a restaurant should result in some sharp pain at most. I think it's reasonable to sue the SHIT out of a place that serves a product capable of melting flesh to the bone without explicit warning. If they wanted to serve it that hot they could've at least included a "CAUTION: Don't spill or this shit will melt your flesh! It's that hot and good!" sticker on their cups Yeah, the McDonald's example is becoming a legend that people do not anymore know the real story behind it. The sad thing about it is that the woman didn't even get compensated. | ||
|
jobber123rd
United States501 Posts
On April 28 2012 16:47 horsebanger wrote: there's more to it than we know for sure. remember, the woman had the jury from USA backing her up No jury was involved; it was settled out of court. | ||
|
redemption
United States112 Posts
On April 28 2012 16:46 -Archangel- wrote: If she is retarded then why did Nuttela lose the lawsuit? There were obviously some false advertising involved here. Personally I hate companies that lie to us more then people suing them. They didn't lose. They settled. | ||
|
grtgrt1
76 Posts
| ||
|
Daogin
Canada2308 Posts
On April 28 2012 16:55 Man with a Plan wrote: Yeah, the McDonald's example is becoming a legend that people do not anymore know the real story behind it. The sad thing about it is that the woman didn't even get compensated. the thing that gets me about mcdonalds is the fact that i dont even know how they managed to get such "hot" coffee. I work at Tim Hortons and the hottest thing we serve is tea, which is boiling water but not enough to cause third degree burns. I've even spilt it all over my hands, yea it's hot but not that hot :S | ||
|
UltimateHurl
Ireland591 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
As for the lawsuit itself, meh in the end its just another expense that doesn't hurt them much. I hope something good can come from this but honestly companies don't change until they have to or something really scares them into change. | ||
|
goldenwitch
United States338 Posts
| ||
|
Hemula
Russian Federation1849 Posts
| ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
http://youtu.be/RpNLUFA34iw didnt even include this video ;; | ||
|
teekesselchen
Germany886 Posts
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. But they do not advertise with "This coffee won't burn you", "You can stick forks into these electrical sockets" or "Jumping from this 12th floor won't hurt". | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
On April 28 2012 16:21 Kazahk wrote: The companies want money, its a fault in our human psychology. We cant blame people for being human, at the same time we cant blame some one for being dumb. So according to your logic, if i rape that little redhead passing the bus stop every day while i was there you can't blame me because i am just human? I just follow my instincts you know... Actions have consequences. If you fool people with lying (which the court concluded that they are fooling people, i am not saying i know if they are lying or not) sooner or later someone could use it against you. It's the nature of this stuff. And there is no small or big lie. Lie is a lie, especially it gets more important if you're telling it to the intense amount of masses. | ||
|
Big-t
Austria1350 Posts
| ||
|
Chilling5pr33
Germany518 Posts
I really hate advertisement and all that claims they do within it. Im not stupid enough to fall for it but some people are and thats fed me up so im actually happy to see them being sued over the suggestive advertisement. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
If I wasn't so lazy I'd probably try to do the same based on some retarded ads I've seen in my life. | ||
|
thesideshow
930 Posts
On April 28 2012 17:14 Daogin wrote: the thing that gets me about mcdonalds is the fact that i dont even know how they managed to get such "hot" coffee. I work at Tim Hortons and the hottest thing we serve is tea, which is boiling water but not enough to cause third degree burns. I've even spilt it all over my hands, yea it's hot but not that hot :S I was getting kind of confused with that too. Until I realised the temperatures were being reported in fahrenheit. So Macdonald's coffee was served below boiling. I make drinks and soups hotter than that. The key to the woman's injury was the type of fabric she was wearing. I don't see how that can be termed "negligently hot". But I'm no lawyer so I won't comment. | ||
|
Sinensis
United States2513 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:15 thesideshow wrote: I was getting kind of confused with that too. Until I realised the temperatures were being reported in fahrenheit. So Macdonald's coffee was served below boiling. I make drinks and soups hotter than that. The key to the woman's injury was the type of fabric she was wearing. I don't see how that can be termed "negligently hot". But I'm no lawyer so I won't comment. What kind of fabric causes burns when hot water is applied? What kind of hot water burns through skin for that matter? I have seen sugar burn through skin but not water... | ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
And how on earth can hot coffee burn through flesh? | ||
|
Kazahk
United States385 Posts
On April 28 2012 17:49 Aelfric wrote: So according to your logic, if i rape that little redhead passing the bus stop every day while i was there you can't blame me because i am just human? I just follow my instincts you know... Actions have consequences. If you fool people with lying (which the court concluded that they are fooling people, i am not saying i know if they are lying or not) sooner or later someone could use it against you. It's the nature of this stuff. And there is no small or big lie. Lie is a lie, especially it gets more important if you're telling it to the intense amount of masses. *sighs* If you were to rape and defile the redhead at the bus stop you would be held responsible and would get punished. But there is a reason you raped her. Get what i'm trying to say? I'm not trying to say you wouldn't be held responsible (i get the feeling you didn't read my full post...) i'm trying to say who's fault is it. Why would you rape the red head, your lack of masculinity, were you abused as a child, did your parents beat you, did you witness a scaring event( murder, rape, horror movie etc.) So YES i'm saying you would be responsible as you were the one who raped the girl, but who's fault is it?(and btw i've stated a few time in the post that the person who did the action of whatever is still responsible...) | ||
|
Marou
Germany1371 Posts
| ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:14 gruff wrote: How many people actually read the labels on what they eat? Sure it should be fairly obvious that nutella is not good for you but I wonder if the "she should have read the label" people do the same on everything they eat. If a company uses advertisements that is very misleading or just factually incorrect they should have lawsuits coming their way, I don't get why people are opposed to this. If I wasn't so lazy I'd probably try to do the same based on some retarded ads I've seen in my life. Thank fuck, finally someone GETS IT. It's impossible to double-check everything and run a background search on every product you ever come across. The only rational way to keep people informed is to put accurate information (the good and the bad) within the ad itself. Besides, it's not like it's something unheard of in advertising. In a lot of countries, medicine and cigarette ads have to display a message that the product may be harmful for you, and specify how/why exactly - both in the ad itself and make it very visible on the product container (and in clear and simple language, not something as obscure as "nutrition tables"). Food industry has been getting away with far too much crap lately, and they've not been held accountable for it. Given that the quality of food we eat is deteriorating by the day, it's ridiculous to be opposed to lawsuits like this - at least until food advertising is properly regulated and put under control. | ||
|
thesideshow
930 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:24 Sinensis wrote: What kind of fabric causes burns when hot water is applied? What kind of hot water burns through skin for that matter? I have seen sugar burn through skin but not water... The fabric held the hot water to the skin, giving it time to cause burns. Don't wear tight clothing when dealing with hot liquids! On April 28 2012 18:25 fearus wrote: Well if it fits your macros.... And how on earth can hot coffee burn through flesh? "Burning through flesh" seems to just be an exaggeration | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:15 thesideshow wrote: I was getting kind of confused with that too. Until I realised the temperatures were being reported in fahrenheit. So Macdonald's coffee was served below boiling. I make drinks and soups hotter than that. The key to the woman's injury was the type of fabric she was wearing. I don't see how that can be termed "negligently hot". But I'm no lawyer so I won't comment. Well when she received 3rd degree burns (and they had over 700 similar complaints, many also with third degree burns) then yea obviously something is a bit off there. | ||
|
Kotreb
Croatia1392 Posts
| ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:27 Talin wrote: Thank fuck, finally someone GETS IT. It's impossible to double-check everything and run a background search on every product you ever come across. The only rational way to keep people informed is to put accurate information (the good and the bad) within the ad itself. Besides, it's not like it's something unheard of in advertising. In a lot of countries, medicine and cigarette ads (as well as the product containers) have to display a message that the product may be harmful for you, and specify how/why exactly. Food industry has been getting away with far too much crap lately, and they've not been held accountable for it. Given that the quality of food we eat is deteriorating by the day, it's ridiculous to be opposed to lawsuits like this - at least until food advertising is properly regulated and put under control. So you read the part where it says it is a healthy treat? But somehow not read the nutrition label telling you how much saturated fat and sugar is it in... Selective reading maybe? Sure you may not be able to double check everything for an item you buy once in a while or in the spur of the moment, but if you buy something on a weekly basis for 2 straight years with it sitting on your kitchen counter, don't you think it is more than reasonable to assume you would have had a closer look at it? | ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
It says on the back label "Kids do a lot of living in the day, providing them with a balanced breakfast can make a difference" Example of a balanced breakfast + Two slices of high fibre whitebread with 10g of delicious Nutella per slice + One glass of reduced fat milk + One piece of fruit I really don't see anything wrong with this labelling, this lawsuit is retarded. | ||
|
yandere991
Australia394 Posts
By that same logic people about to retire with no financial knowledge deserve to lose their life savings if they get manipulated into putting their super into a high beta investment when clearly it wasn't wise to do so. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:32 fearus wrote: So you read the part where it says it is a healthy treat? But somehow not read the nutrition label telling you how much saturated fat and sugar is it in... Selective reading maybe? Sure you may not be able to double check everything for an item you buy once in a while or in the spur of the moment, but if you buy something on a weekly basis for 2 straight years with it sitting on your kitchen counter, don't you think it is more than reasonable to assume you would have had a closer look at it? The point is that it's a LOT more rational and reasonable to force companies to say something like - in Nutella's case - "product contains X% fat / specific harmful substances and excessive consumption may be bad for you" or something along those lines at the end of each advertisement. | ||
|
Krissam
Denmark189 Posts
| ||
|
MCDayC
United Kingdom14464 Posts
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. This is my feelings, including the eating with a spoon. That shit's tasty, even if I feel guilty about it for the rest of the day, | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:40 Krissam wrote: <xterm> The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself? Judging by the number of posts like this, that problem is hardly specific to America. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:38 yandere991 wrote: I don't get the argument that people with no nutritional knowledge deserve to get screwed over by these advertisements. By that same logic people about to retire with no financial knowledge deserve to lose their life savings if they get manipulated into putting their super into a high beta investment when clearly it wasn't wise to do so. ...well yeah...you live by your decisions, and if they're shitty decisions then you either: a. live with it b. fix it c. hope someone cares enough to help out/make it go away. Most people get stuck with "A". Not sure that's a bad thing all the time. Certainly unfortunate and quite sad, but not "bad". | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:45 Kimaker wrote: ...well yeah...you live by your decisions, and if they're shitty decisions then you either: a. live with it b. fix it c. hope someone cares enough to help out/make it go away. Most people get stuck with "A". Not sure that's a bad thing all the time. Certainly unfortunate and quite sad, but not "bad". You can care enough yourself and take action against it, or at least publicize it in some way if you can't do anything else (which I guess is 'b', although it's not quite fixing it). Kind of like the woman dozens of people here described as dumb/retarded did. Ironic that we apparently have to rely on "stupid people" to actually do the correct thing, because the rest of us are somehow too "smart" for it. | ||
|
Animzor
Sweden2154 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:40 MCDayC wrote: This is my feelings, including the eating with a spoon. That shit's tasty, even if I feel guilty about it for the rest of the day, I agree about the bullshit marketing. But why should anyone be able to sue for money? Money has nothing to do with this case. Suing someone for money is stealing, except you have the law on your side. You may be entitled to something, like an apology, but definitely not money. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10301 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:27 Talin wrote: Thank fuck, finally someone GETS IT. It's impossible to double-check everything and run a background search on every product you ever come across. The only rational way to keep people informed is to put accurate information (the good and the bad) within the ad itself. Besides, it's not like it's something unheard of in advertising. In a lot of countries, medicine and cigarette ads have to display a message that the product may be harmful for you, and specify how/why exactly - both in the ad itself and make it very visible on the product container (and in clear and simple language, not something as obscure as "nutrition tables"). Food industry has been getting away with far too much crap lately, and they've not been held accountable for it. Given that the quality of food we eat is deteriorating by the day, it's ridiculous to be opposed to lawsuits like this - at least until food advertising is properly regulated and put under control. I don't read the label on everything I eat, but on the rare times that I don't read the label I also don't blame other people for my inability to read the label. | ||
|
felisconcolori
United States6168 Posts
(Also, I feel forced to point out that Nutella is in fact mostly hazelnut.) A glass of wine is healthy. The entire bottle at once is not. There's nothing untrue about the advertising - it's a healthy *TREAT*, not a fucking full time meal replacement. (Although it might be like a plumpy bar, which IS a full time meal replacement emergency ration.) I guarantee, this ruling will probably get overturned on appeal in 4 years of more lawyer filled action, just like that stupid McDonald's coffee lawsuit. (Yeah, the lady that spilled the coffee on herself? Never got a dime.) | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:51 Animzor wrote: I agree about the bullshit marketing. But why should anyone be able to sue for money? Money has nothing to do with this case. Suing someone for money is stealing, except you have the law on your side. You may be entitled to something, like an apology, but definitely not money. An "apology"? Yeah, that is such a deterrent. -_- Companies get fined money because it's only reasonable that they lose a fraction of income they gained by selling the product under false pretenses (in this case), or by doing something else unethical or illegal. Why would they be allowed to keep that money? If you go as far as to see the fines as "stealing", then one could also say that the company "stole" that money to begin with. Besides, if you read the thread, you'll notice that nobody actually gets the bulk of $3.5 million. | ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:38 fearus wrote: For anyone who cares, I have a nice jar of nutella right next to me. It says on the back label I really don't see anything wrong with this labelling, this lawsuit is retarded. I am going to quote this again for people who may have missed it. I typed out the labeling and 'advertisement' on my own Nutella jar. Please feel free to tell me where in there is false advertisement. | ||
|
YourOldBuddy
Iceland94 Posts
![[image loading]](http://nerdnirvana.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/nutella-500x375.jpg) | ||
|
Hiea
Denmark1538 Posts
This woman put her cat in the microwave oven to dry it, and then the cat died because well.. isn't it obvious? She then filed a lawsuit and won. If every single little retarded detail isn't on the box in the US, companies can get sued. | ||
|
Sea_Food
Finland1612 Posts
On April 28 2012 19:08 YourOldBuddy wrote: I actually have no sympathy for Nutella here. They stock this poo alongside peanut butter instead of in the candy section where it belongs and advertise it as a part of a balanced diet. There is not a single food/drink product in the world (that i have heard of) that cannot be a part of balanced diet. Everything is good in moderation. | ||
|
Mondieu
Romania803 Posts
| ||
|
fortheGG
United Kingdom1002 Posts
On April 28 2012 19:12 Mondieu wrote: well i watched the ad, http://www.youtube.com/embed/ThIrw_LpuRA ; they never say it's healty, just an easy, quick breakfast. I guess they must have had 3.5$ sitting around. Or there was some dirt/part of the case that they wanted to go away. 3.5m is not much to Nutella but I doubt they just wanted to give it away. | ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10301 Posts
On April 28 2012 19:11 Sea_Food wrote: There is not a single food/drink product in the world (that i have heard of) that cannot be a part of balanced diet. Everything is good in moderation. Everything is not "good" in moderation. It's just that some things won't be as bad if it's in moderation. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On April 28 2012 19:10 Hiea wrote: This reminds me of an incident in USA a long time ago. This woman put her cat in the microwave oven to dry it, and then the cat died because well.. isn't it obvious? She then filed a lawsuit and won. If every single little retarded detail isn't on the box in the US, companies can get sued. Source? Sounds familiar... urban legend perhaps? The legend about the microwaved pet has been with us since 1976, but its antecedents were around long before that. If lore is to be believed, foolhardy old ladies have been attempting to dry wet pets in clothes dryers and conventional ovens long before the invention of the microwave oven. A related Russian legend tells of a mother whose custom was to bathe her child in a tub of warm water. She places the tub (with the child in it) on top of the unlit wood stove, and goes to speak to a neighbor. The gossip session stretches out longer than anticpated. Upon return to her kitchen, she discovers a draft through the open back door has caused the fire to rekindle under the child and her baby now lies dead in the tub. Source Keep spreading that tort reform propaganda though lol. | ||
|
StickyFlower
Sweden68 Posts
| ||
|
Olsson
Sweden931 Posts
| ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
Sorry, but a grown-up doesn't make his/her dietary/any choices based on advertisements. They should've put that money in public schools. And Nutella isn't even that unhealthy in moderation. | ||
|
DwD
Sweden8621 Posts
| ||
|
yandere991
Australia394 Posts
How do you feel about predatory lending? Do you also feel that the victims are also retarded and stupid because they did not understand basic finance? Judging by the perception of banks and lending institutions in society and in the threads in TL there seems to be a double standard. | ||
|
thezanursic
5478 Posts
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 or really smart. | ||
|
peacenl
550 Posts
A) Can you blame someone for being less intelligent or believing commercials? No.. B) Can you blame a company for making false statements in their advertisement? Yes.. Consider that not all parts of the population are able to make their own educated choices (children, the sick, elderly you name it), and companies were allowed to state anything they like in advertisements. Whats next you hear in a commercial that something is only 25$, green and contains nothing that causes allergic reactions but in the store it turns out to be 30$, blue and causes allergic reactions, is that fine? | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 28 2012 19:31 HwangjaeTerran wrote: Sorry, but a grown-up doesn't make his/her dietary/any choices based on advertisements. The nature of advertisements is to provide information about the product. Instead of allowing them to spout bullshit and then choosing to ignore what they say (in which case they are a waste of everybody's time), is it not more logical to force them to describe the product accurately, so that people could make informed decisions based on what they hear in ads? What is so wrong about making every food ad at the very least display a nutrition table at the end of each advertisement, or warn against possible harmful substances included within it? It's easy to act superior and condescending towards people who are ignorant of something, but like it's been stated many times in the thread, nobody has a complete enough knowledge to be properly informed about every product they buy (not just food), and many people don't even have means of obtaining such knowledge. And they're still very much "grown up". Ignorance is not a crime. Manipulation through mass media, however, should be - if for no other reason, than because it actively SPREADS ignorance. | ||
|
zul
Germany5427 Posts
| ||
|
Lumi
United States1612 Posts
| ||
|
OptimusYale
Korea (South)1005 Posts
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. The best is when you buy nuts and it says'Warning, may contain nuts' like no shit, I fucking bought some nuts...you telling me theres a chance there is not nuts in there? Also, I assumed nutella was a good breakfast to have if you have an extremely energetic day such as hiking and climbing....tell me thats the case otherwise I will lose my mind | ||
|
unkkz
Norway2196 Posts
| ||
|
Wurstbrot
Germany89 Posts
| ||
|
Patriot.dlk
Sweden5462 Posts
Some of the products in the grocery store are complete bullshit and it pisses me of that they passes as legit. | ||
|
NorthernRiver
Sweden107 Posts
The first comment in the thread brings up the classic example of the woman who sued McDonalds because their coffee was too hot. What many people don't know is that she got a third grade burn in her pelvic area (third grade burns require excision) after spilling coffee. When she sued McDonalds she was ridiculed and has been ever since. Yet very few know the complications involved in that case. I don't know if that woman and the woman in this lawsuit really deserved the money they got, but what I do know is that it's pretty dumb to make judgements without knowing any facts. There are alot of threads similar to this one that consists of mindless bashing, where is the critical thinking? | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
Also, I assumed nutella was a good breakfast to have if you have an extremely energetic day such as hiking and climbing....tell me thats the case otherwise I will lose my mind Proof of the power of advertising right there! lol That appears to be a "half-truth", similar to what one might hear in politics. There seems to be a lot of talk about Nutella in my world! My husband LOVES Nutella- seems like the rest of the world does too! The big question – Is Nutella GOOD or BAD for you? The Nutella website claims that Nutella is full of energy- “Spread some Energy”. TRUE! Yes Nutella is full of energy, however the majority of this energy comes from sugar, creating an initial “high” and then a crash shortly after. Also, since cocoa is an ingredient in Nutella, there are traces of caffeine in a yummy morning tablespoon serving! (Coffee plus Nutella sounds even better, don’t you think?… mmmm Nutella Mocha) Problem: Sugar high=Sugar Low. Solution? More Nutella and then an afternoon nap! Lets look at the ingredients. This delicious spread is made from the combination of roasted hazelnuts, skim milk and a touch of cocoa. Healthy right? It also has no artificial colors or preservatives. BUT Nutella conveniently forgets to mention that the two MAIN ingredients are sugar and modified palm oil (I like to forget about that part). The truth is that Nutella’s slogan should actually be: “Nutella is a yummy sugary, modified oil spread, with delicious hazelnuts, tons of cocos and “touch” of skim milk power”. Yes, the ugly truth told like a fairy tale. I Like to compare Nutella with our other yummy friend, Peanut Butter. When compared, both have the same amount of calories per serving: 1 tbsp= 100 calories. Peanut Butter has more fat then Nutella, however PB is actually a natural fat which is better for you and not modified. The reason Nutella appears to have less fat, is mostly because there is much more sugar in it acting as a filler. Okay so the most staggering difference between PB and Nutella is the sugar content! Unfortunately it’s bad, 11g vs 1g. My solution- adding an extra 10 minutes on the treadmill! Source | ||
|
thesideshow
930 Posts
and perhaps, Suppose someone was selling water as a healthy drink. I believe it and drink loads of it and die of water poisoning. Would the person be at fault for false advertising? Or a least be at fault for not telling me that excessive amounts of anything isn't good? | ||
|
CrtBalorda
Slovenia704 Posts
I know companies shoudnt be able to fasle advertise, but cant we be bro enough and let this kind of shit slide for once. | ||
|
buldermar
Denmark102 Posts
| ||
|
buldermar
Denmark102 Posts
On April 28 2012 19:31 DwD wrote: Common sense.. some don't have it. Maybe it should be a requirement before you can become a judge.. lmao, that's kind of stretching it. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
Really, she's the one with millions more in the pocket, and WE're accusing her of stupidity... typical homo sapiens. | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
On April 28 2012 19:49 Talin wrote: The nature of advertisements is to provide information about the product. Instead of allowing them to spout bullshit and then choosing to ignore what they say (in which case they are a waste of everybody's time), is it not more logical to force them to describe the product accurately, so that people could make informed decisions based on what they hear in ads? What is so wrong about making every food ad at the very least display a nutrition table at the end of each advertisement, or warn against possible harmful substances included within it? It's easy to act superior and condescending towards people who are ignorant of something, but like it's been stated many times in the thread, nobody has a complete enough knowledge to be properly informed about every product they buy (not just food), and many people don't even have means of obtaining such knowledge. And they're still very much "grown up". Ignorance is not a crime. Manipulation through mass media, however, should be - if for no other reason, than because it actively SPREADS ignorance. Manipulation doesn't spread ignorance, it just feeds on it. I think that if you are watching ads you are already actively being ignorant. Forcing advertisers to accurately describe the product just means there won't be too many ads around. Giving out millions to ignorant people is SPREADING ignorance. | ||
|
unkkz
Norway2196 Posts
THe documentary is a good watch and shines some light on corporate america and media spinning. | ||
|
Mallidon
Scotland557 Posts
Profits: Loads of people remember 'Oh, Nutella... Should buy some of that'. Seriously though... Crazy story. Either this woman is insane or a genius. I guess they say the line between insanity and genius is pretty thin... | ||
|
AlphaWhale
Australia328 Posts
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. With that attitude you'll never have $3.5 million! | ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
I'd imagine that the typical user on TLnet is more educated than the average person on the street, and to us it seems "obvious" that Nutella is not at all healthy, and we're cynical enough to be able to take the commercial literally and understand that it does not state that Nutella is healthy. However, the ad is obviously (IMO) intending to mislead people into thinking that, and you can't just extrapolate your own education onto the whole population. Don't blame the consumer for being uneducated - that's prejudice. If it weren't for lawsuits like this, cigarette companies would still be allowed to advertise smoking as being cool and trendy and directly cause millions of deaths annually. | ||
|
Escape
Canada306 Posts
| ||
|
Xpace
United States2209 Posts
| ||
|
unkkz
Norway2196 Posts
On April 28 2012 23:06 Xpace wrote: Someone in marketing is getting his ass FIRED. Doubt it, the marketing has undoubtedly increased sales enough so that they can spare whatever they lose in this lawsuit. Instead they will most likely try to debunk the whole thing as frivilous and push for a tort reform, there have been exstensive campaigns like this in the past by big corporations so i doubt this will be anything different. | ||
BluemoonSC
SoCal8908 Posts
ignorance is bliss in America, though. *sigh* | ||
|
dicex
127 Posts
| ||
|
SocialisT
Sweden160 Posts
On April 28 2012 23:12 dicex wrote: Wait, so in the US you don't have to write nutrition data on your product??? My thoughts exactly, is this true? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10301 Posts
You couldn't figure out the answer from the post directly above his? | ||
|
Skullflower
United States3779 Posts
On April 28 2012 23:12 dicex wrote: Wait, so in the US you don't have to write nutrition data on your product??? You do but no one reads it. Or more accurately no one probably knows what any of it means. | ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
On April 28 2012 11:04 Talin wrote: 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. This void of information can't be cured by anything but the consumer, though. The nutritional information on the back is the most they can put without including a biology lesson on every single product. The same goes for electronics and computer science, drugs and a medical degree, and a housing with architecture. If this women truly believed that the advertising for Nutella truely did convey its nutritional value without their explicitly saying so, then she must believe that everything commercial every conceived does the exact same: Every movie is the best movie of the year. Every car is the safest. Every Insurance company has the best deals and coverage. Every resteraunt has the best food. If one truly believes that all, then that is definatly within the borders of legitmate medical mental retardation. If you don't know what you're getting used to, the world cannot cater to you. You cannot expect everything and everyone to fit you personally and cover all of your wants and needs generally without your own effort and input, more or less something as specific as the nuritional value of a food spread. Maybe it comes down to opinion, but for me, I believe that if you get into something without proper research, it's your fault. It's your duty to make your own choices based on your opinion derived from your own research of whatever you're looking into. When you go to Bestbuy, do you buy the first thing that the sales people point to without asking question? They can't lie to you, so you're in charge of balancing the actual pros and cons of everything they have. When you're researching a pet, do you go to PetCo and get the first thing they point out without researching it yourself? You should probably research pets from anywhere you can, starting with species, breed, gender, attitude, cost, etc. I guess that's the boundry where opinion is drawn | ||
|
Peqqz
Germany201 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:50 Aunvilgod wrote: Gotta love America for all these law-stories. Americans really are the most fun people on the planet. User was warned for this post Why warning? In every other country we make fun about the American law-stories. T-T | ||
|
Smat
United States301 Posts
On April 28 2012 23:38 Peqqz wrote: Why warning? In every other country we make fun about the American law-stories. T-T Cause its annoying. | ||
|
ThePlayer33
Australia2378 Posts
| ||
|
Sanguinarius
United States3427 Posts
| ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
On April 28 2012 23:38 TALegion wrote: This void of information can't be cured by anything but the consumer, though. The nutritional information on the back is the most they can put without including a biology lesson on every single product. The same goes for electronics and computer science, drugs and a medical degree, and a housing with architecture. If this women truly believed that the advertising for Nutella truely did convey its nutritional value without their explicitly saying so, then she must believe that everything commercial every conceived does the exact same: Every movie is the best movie of the year. Every car is the safest. Every Insurance company has the best deals and coverage. Every resteraunt has the best food. If one truly believes that all, then that is definatly within the borders of legitmate medical mental retardation. If you don't know what you're getting used to, the world cannot cater to you. You cannot expect everything and everyone to fit you personally and cover all of your wants and needs generally without your own effort and input, more or less something as specific as the nuritional value of a food spread. Maybe it comes down to opinion, but for me, I believe that if you get into something without proper research, it's your fault. It's your duty to make your own choices based on your opinion derived from your own research of whatever you're looking into. When you go to Bestbuy, do you buy the first thing that the sales people point to without asking question? They can't lie to you, so you're in charge of balancing the actual pros and cons of everything they have. When you're researching a pet, do you go to PetCo and get the first thing they point out without researching it yourself? You should probably research pets from anywhere you can, starting with species, breed, gender, attitude, cost, etc. I guess that's the boundry where opinion is drawn Yeah, but the UK (and presumably the US) have "fair trading" laws for advertising, to prevent adverts that they consider intentionally misleading. That's not just adverts that are factually untrue, but also include adverts where the trading standards bodies consider that the impression given to the average consumer by the advert (with no other information required) does not reflect reality. Of course it's a very subjective boundary, but IMO - adverts such as Red Bull adverts, which say "Red Bull gives you wings", would not be considered intentionally misleading because the vast majority of people will not interpret that literally, even with no prior knowledge of what Red Bull is or what it does - adverts such as the Nutella advert linked earlier could be argued as intentionally misleading, because a significant proportion of people with no prior knowledge of what Nutella is or what goes into it may get the impression that feeding their children Nutella for breakfast every day is a Good Thing Now a misleading advert in the UK will usually receive an order from the advertising standards agency to be removed. However, I can imagine that if you can argue that the advert is intentionally misleading, you probably have a valid case to take to court. | ||
|
wOrD yO
Australia119 Posts
| ||
|
GhostLink
United States450 Posts
| ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
Generalizations are bad, m'kay? | ||
|
Kenpachi
United States9908 Posts
..i wish i was an idiot so i can make big monies through dumb accusations | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
On April 29 2012 00:19 Kenpachi wrote: ..i wish i was smart enough to play an idiot so i can make big monies through dumb accusations fixed it for you | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
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? Just wanted to quote myself because I can see that the idiotic posts about "frivolous lawsuits" seem to be continuing. | ||
|
jobber123rd
United States501 Posts
On April 29 2012 00:11 GhostLink wrote: Well, while you guys are accusing this woman of being dumb, you've got to think of her possible ulterior motives. She just probably used an opportunity to set herself up for life with the money she got. We see it all the time. Legal system is flawed, and opportunists see where to exploit it. She's getting $2000. The rest is going to the lawyers and payments of no greater than $20 for each Class Member (people who file a claim to be in the class for having bought Nutella in the past four years (~2.5 years in California)). | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 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? As one commenter said, this ad is misleading only if you're a moron. Nowhere does it say that Nutella is healthy. In fact, all it really says is that Nutella has nuts, milk and cocoa, and that it tastes good. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
TL calls her an idiot. I'm glad TL isn't so facist as to be supportive of the rights of corporations as opposed to the rights of citizens. Oh wait... | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10301 Posts
| ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
00:15 Woman says that with nutella it's amazing what kids can do. A shot of a kid jumping into the middle of a pool. I'm led to believe that nutella can teach kids to swim. 00:16 And also teaches them to button a shirt 00:19 And can help them choreograph a dance 00:20 Child's tooth falls out. I can only assume it's from the nutella. I'm led to believe that nutella can speed the growth of adult teeth. Throughout the ad the children are very happy, smiling, having fun. Clearly nutella is being marketed as an anti-depressant for young children. Ok so I've got several potential lawsuits lined up. The swimming pool is probably the biggest cash cow. We can complain that parents let their children drown in a pool because they were misled by false advertising. Who wants in? | ||
|
MadProbe
United States269 Posts
On April 29 2012 00:57 paralleluniverse wrote: As one commenter said, this ad is misleading only if you're a moron. Nowhere does it say that Nutella is healthy. In fact, all it really says is that Nutella has nuts, milk and coca, and that it tastes good. Yeah, they don't outright say that Nutella is healthy. But they STRONGLY imply it. That's the whole "angle" of this ad. They DID say that feeding nutella for breakfast helps your kids eat healthy foods. Someone else has said this better before me: 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? And yeah, it takes a moron to actually believe it-- but that's who they're marketing to. Am I the only one who thinks convincing mothers to feed their children Nutella for breakfast because it is healthy is criminal? Wouldn't you be outraged if Mcdonalds was marketed as healthy? FOR CHILDREN? That's disgusting. | ||
|
MadProbe
United States269 Posts
On April 29 2012 01:07 liberal wrote: 00:12 Child flaps his arms on the door step. I'm led to believe that nutella causes hallucinations or delusions of being a bird. 00:15 Woman says that with nutella it's amazing what kids can do. A shot of a kid jumping into the middle of a pool. I'm led to believe that nutella can teach kids to swim. 00:16 And also teaches them to button a shirt 00:19 And can help them choreograph a dance 00:20 Child's tooth falls out. I can only assume it's from the nutella. I'm led to believe that nutella can speed the growth of adult teeth. Throughout the ad the children are very happy, smiling, having fun. Clearly nutella is being marketed as an anti-depressant for young children. Ok so I've got several potential lawsuits lined up. The swimming pool is probably the biggest cash cow. We can complain that parents let their children drown in a pool because they were misled by false advertising. Who wants in? There's a small difference between the core angle of an ad and random shit you pull from parts of a commercial. | ||
|
sereniity
Sweden1159 Posts
"Maybe i should sue the company that makes almond joys,i love those but according to the commercial when you open it your supposed to see a small beach and palm trees with a hammock.Never works for me." Fucking hilarious, and true actually... I don't see how this worked, how the hell did she win the case? | ||
|
sVnteen
Germany2238 Posts
i mean srsly that woman was dumb but ferrero was even dumber so i dont see a problem with this eventhough this IS kinda stupid xD | ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
On April 29 2012 00:57 paralleluniverse wrote: As one commenter said, this ad is misleading only if you're a moron. Nowhere does it say that Nutella is healthy. In fact, all it really says is that Nutella has nuts, milk and cocoa, and that it tastes good. And who are you to judge who is a "moron" and who isn't? And why should "morons" not receive the same anti-exploitation protection that the rest of us enjoy, from these fair trading laws? I cannot for the life of me understand this mentality of "I'm smart enough to avoid <bad thing>, people who are less smart than me deserve to be punished by <bad thing> for not being smart enough". If anything, those are the people who most need help and protection. EDIT: and these people are the exact people the laws around fair trading are designed to protect! | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On April 29 2012 01:22 dmfg wrote: And who are you to judge who is a "moron" and who isn't? And why should "morons" not receive the same anti-exploitation protection that the rest of us enjoy, from these fair trading laws? I cannot for the life of me understand this mentality of "I'm smart enough to avoid <bad thing>, people who are less smart than me deserve to be punished by <bad thing> for not being smart enough". If anything, those are the people who most need help and protection. But then there's an inevitable slippery slope where every ad has to be boring and representative of real life. Cereal ads should always be grumpy people with bed head slowly eating cereals with a coffee while watching the weather channel and wanting to die. If morons think that red bull will help you grow little angel wings, it's their problem. | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51452 Posts
| ||
|
Indolent
Poland137 Posts
| ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
On April 29 2012 01:26 Djzapz wrote: But then there's an inevitable slippery slope where every ad has to be boring and representative of real life. Cereal ads should always be grumpy people with bed head slowly eating cereals with a coffee while watching the weather channel and wanting to die. If morons think that red bull will help you grow little angel wings, it's their problem. These have been enforced for years in the UK by bodies like the Advertising Standards Agency and I haven't noticed the adverts on my TV getting any more "boring", or involving grumpy people. The vast majority of adverts manage to make a product seem appealing without sending an untrue message (explicitly or implicitly). And again, I don't understand why you are arguing to strip to away this protection that was put in place explicitly to protect people that might be unfairly mislead by these adverts. You're not gonna be affected by it, so why screw them over? | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On April 29 2012 01:38 dmfg wrote: These have been enforced for years in the UK by bodies like the Advertising Standards Agency and I haven't noticed the adverts on my TV getting any more "boring", or involving grumpy people. The vast majority of adverts manage to make a product seem appealing without sending an untrue message (explicitly or implicitly). And again, I don't understand why you are arguing to strip to away this protection that was put in place explicitly to protect people that might be unfairly mislead by these adverts. You're not gonna be affected by it, so why screw them over? Some products that are not misleading can be misinterpreted as misleading by stupid people, and there's nothing we can do against that except completely dull down ads which are already boring enough as it is. Nutella ads for instance show energic and happy people, which are effects that f'ing chocolate and sugar can have. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's healthy with long term use. Should all ads have the "Only good in moderation" or should people be expected to do well for themselves? I'm all for customer protection, and I'm against misleading ads of course, but if morons misinterpret ads too badly, well there's nothing we can do about it. My mini-wheats NEVER SING, EVER. | ||
|
inlagdsil
Canada957 Posts
| ||
|
ManyCookies
1164 Posts
Some products that are not misleading can be misinterpreted as misleading by stupid people, and there's nothing we can do against that except completely dull down ads which are already boring enough as it is. Nutella ads for instance show energic and happy people, which are effects that f'ing chocolate and sugar can have. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's healthy with long term use. There's a large difference between an implicit consequence of "This product will make you happy", becuase all products do that within two-three step seperation, and an explicit consequence of "This product will make your hair grow back" when it doesn't. Similarily, it's one thing to say Nutella will make your kids happy, but quite another to suggest chocolate frosting with nuts belongs anywhere near a breakfast table. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On April 29 2012 01:10 MadProbe wrote: Yeah, they don't outright say that Nutella is healthy. But they STRONGLY imply it. That's the whole "angle" of this ad. They DID say that feeding nutella for breakfast helps your kids eat healthy foods. Someone else has said this better before me: And yeah, it takes a moron to actually believe it-- but that's who they're marketing to. Am I the only one who thinks convincing mothers to feed their children Nutella for breakfast because it is healthy is criminal? Wouldn't you be outraged if Mcdonalds was marketed as healthy? FOR CHILDREN? That's disgusting. They did not imply Nutella is healthy. If including healthy looking kids eating Nutella implies that Nutella is healthy then essentially everything advertised on TV implies health, as you virtually never see a sick kid in a TV ad. Also, where does it say feeding Nutella for breakfast helps your kids eat healthy foods? I hate misleading advertising as much as anyone, but to suggest this ad is misleading is laughable, and people are laughing over this frivolity. | ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
On April 29 2012 01:45 Djzapz wrote: Some products that are not misleading can be misinterpreted as misleading by stupid people, and there's nothing we can do against that except completely dull down ads which are already boring enough as it is. Nutella ads for instance show energic and happy people, which are effects that f'ing chocolate and sugar can have. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's healthy with long term use. Should all ads have the "Only good in moderation" or should people be expected to do well for themselves? I'm all for customer protection, and I'm against misleading ads of course, but if morons misinterpret ads too badly, well there's nothing we can do about it. My mini-wheats NEVER SING, EVER. It's true that non-misleading adverts can be misinterpreted, but that doesn't constitute unfair advertising. As I said, ultimately the decision over whether an advert is misleading or not is subjective, and depends on the relevant advertising standards association's interpretation. In this case, I think on balance it's misleading since it advocates feeding nutella to your kids for breakfast every day. Adverts don't all need to say "only good in moderation" - however, if the advert itself is demonstrating it being used in excess, then I think it's reasonable to demand that they either change their advertising, or include a warning. The reason MacDonalds, BK, etc can advertise all their unhealthy food is because they just advertise the food for what it is - they don't tell you "you can eat this every day". | ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
On April 29 2012 01:50 inlagdsil wrote: The companies that really need to get sued are breakfast cereal makers. They have managed to convince hundreds of millions of people that putting what are essentially extremely sugary cookies in milk makes for a healthy diet. Hence "part of a healthy breakfast". Agree with this 100% in principle - however, all the cereal ads I've seen stick (juuuuust) within the limits of fair advertising, usually by using that "as part of a balanced and healthy diet" disclaimer you mentioned. And proving in court that the subsequent obesity is a direct consequence of that cereal consumption just seems too difficult to do convincingly. I think that sadly, they will probably continue to get away with it. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On April 29 2012 02:00 dmfg wrote: It's true that non-misleading adverts can be misinterpreted, but that doesn't constitute unfair advertising. As I said, ultimately the decision over whether an advert is misleading or not is subjective, and depends on the relevant advertising standards association's interpretation. In this case, I think on balance it's misleading since it advocates feeding nutella to your kids for breakfast every day. Adverts don't all need to say "only good in moderation" - however, if the advert itself is demonstrating it being used in excess, then I think it's reasonable to demand that they either change their advertising, or include a warning. The reason MacDonalds, BK, etc can advertise all their unhealthy food is because they just advertise the food for what it is - they don't tell you "you can eat this every day". I think that babysitting the population only goes so far, and bad parenting is the fault of the bad parent and not because of a slightly misleading ad. | ||
|
ManyCookies
1164 Posts
| ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
fusefuse
Estonia4644 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:40 flamewheel wrote: Coffee is hot. Don't stick forks in electrical sockets. Don't jump off building roofs. mind. blown | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:15 thesideshow wrote: I was getting kind of confused with that too. Until I realised the temperatures were being reported in fahrenheit. So Macdonald's coffee was served below boiling. I make drinks and soups hotter than that. The key to the woman's injury was the type of fabric she was wearing. I don't see how that can be termed "negligently hot". But I'm no lawyer so I won't comment. You don't see how? This is how: When you serve your coffee between 40 and 50°F hotter than what's served in other restaurants and homes, you are serving negligently hot coffee. Ave. Temp of restaurant coffee + home served coffee = ~130-140°F. Guess what McDonald's was? 180-190°F. Guess what boiling is? ~212°F. Are you still sorta confused as to where the "negligent" bit fits into the puzzle? Hint: It's completely negligent to serve a customer something that can seriously injure them without ample warning. Like I said before: If they wanted to serve their coffee that hot, they should've explored the risks and made them explicit to the consumer. If the lady saw "CAUTION: SPILLS ON CLOTHING WILL INDUCE 3° BURNS" she probably wouldn't have decided to set it between her legs in a moving vehicle. And if she wanted to take that risk anyway, well, then it's her fault because of the clear warning. Finally, the personal anecdote "Oh but I make boiling drinks/soup all the time" is pretty trivial. So what. The keys to the woman's injury were clearly both the fact that her fabric absorbed the liquid, and the fact that the liquid itself was negligently hot. If you still want to argue, I'll just cut it short by saying McDonald's now serves warm coffee, instead of scalding coffee, thus implicating that they were in fact in the wrong from a health & safety perspective in their previous method of coffee making. | ||
|
ManyCookies
1164 Posts
I think that babysitting the population only goes so far, and bad parenting is the fault of the bad parent and not because of a slightly misleading ad. For example, from the Yahoo article: Hohenberg, it seems, believed that Nutella was a great dietary choice for her four-year-old daughter. Speculative, and note the implication of Hohenburg thinking it was a "great". We can only dervive she thought it was "acceptable" enough to include, not that it was neccesarily healthly food. Food is not a binary spectrum between "good" and "bad". Butter is awful for you, but you can still include it at breakfast time. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On April 28 2012 23:12 dicex wrote: Wait, so in the US you don't have to write nutrition data on your product??? Not sure how you inferred that from the facts. FDA requires nutritional facts for prepared foods. The only things that don't require labels are "conventional foods", such as raw materials like fresh veggies, raw fish, raw meat, etc. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On April 29 2012 02:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: You don't see how? This is how: When you serve your coffee between 40 and 50°F hotter than what's served in other restaurants and homes, you are serving negligently hot coffee. Ave. Temp of restaurant coffee + home served coffee = ~130-140°F. Guess what McDonald's was? 180-190°F. Guess what boiling is? ~212°F. Are you still sorta confused as to where the "negligent" bit fits into the puzzle? Hint: It's completely negligent to serve a customer something that can seriously injure them without ample warning. Like I said before: If they wanted to serve their coffee that hot, they should've explored the risks and made them explicit to the consumer. If the lady saw "CAUTION: SPILLS ON CLOTHING WILL INDUCE 3° BURNS" she probably wouldn't have decided to set it between her legs in a moving vehicle. And if she wanted to take that risk anyway, well, then it's her fault because of the clear warning. Finally, the personal anecdote "Oh but I make boiling drinks/soup all the time" is pretty trivial. So what. The keys to the woman's injury were clearly both the fact that her fabric absorbed the liquid, and the fact that the liquid itself was negligently hot. If you still want to argue, I'll just cut it short by saying McDonald's now serves warm coffee, instead of scalding coffee, thus implicating that they were in fact in the wrong from a health & safety perspective in their previous method of coffee making. I agree. The fact that coffee is generally hot isn't a free license to make it scolding hot without limit. | ||
|
Kontrax
Germany84 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? This is the reason why the whole world think americans are dumb. No offense but when you hear something like that... | ||
|
Aberu
United States968 Posts
On April 28 2012 18:27 Talin wrote: Thank fuck, finally someone GETS IT. It's impossible to double-check everything and run a background search on every product you ever come across. The only rational way to keep people informed is to put accurate information (the good and the bad) within the ad itself. Besides, it's not like it's something unheard of in advertising. In a lot of countries, medicine and cigarette ads have to display a message that the product may be harmful for you, and specify how/why exactly - both in the ad itself and make it very visible on the product container (and in clear and simple language, not something as obscure as "nutrition tables"). Food industry has been getting away with far too much crap lately, and they've not been held accountable for it. Given that the quality of food we eat is deteriorating by the day, it's ridiculous to be opposed to lawsuits like this - at least until food advertising is properly regulated and put under control. They have a whole ad campaign in america that was based around how health nuttella is. I've seen the commercials. | ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
| ||
|
endy
Switzerland8970 Posts
| ||
|
B.I.G.
3251 Posts
That'll teacher to fuck with Nutella. | ||
|
dotHead
United States233 Posts
| ||
|
Joefish
Germany314 Posts
On April 29 2012 02:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: You don't see how? This is how: When you serve your coffee between 40 and 50°F hotter than what's served in other restaurants and homes, you are serving negligently hot coffee. Ave. Temp of restaurant coffee + home served coffee = ~130-140°F. Guess what McDonald's was? 180-190°F. Guess what boiling is? ~212°F. Are you still sorta confused as to where the "negligent" bit fits into the puzzle? Hint: It's completely negligent to serve a customer something that can seriously injure them without ample warning. Like I said before: If they wanted to serve their coffee that hot, they should've explored the risks and made them explicit to the consumer. If the lady saw "CAUTION: SPILLS ON CLOTHING WILL INDUCE 3° BURNS" she probably wouldn't have decided to set it between her legs in a moving vehicle. And if she wanted to take that risk anyway, well, then it's her fault because of the clear warning. Finally, the personal anecdote "Oh but I make boiling drinks/soup all the time" is pretty trivial. So what. The keys to the woman's injury were clearly both the fact that her fabric absorbed the liquid, and the fact that the liquid itself was negligently hot. If you still want to argue, I'll just cut it short by saying McDonald's now serves warm coffee, instead of scalding coffee, thus implicating that they were in fact in the wrong from a health & safety perspective in their previous method of coffee making. I see your point but still... It seems that people aren't capable of thinking for themselves anymore. When I order a coffee I don't care if it's 190°F or 140°F. I know it's hot and should better watch out and definitely don't put it between my legs. Same goes for the mother in this case. Maybe we should banish people form our society because their stupidity could harm others and themselves? And whats most tragic about this is she won the case. when she realized the spread is about as healthy as your average Snickers bar, she decided it was time to get even -- and get cash. Seriously.. People need to grow up | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
BlitzerSC
Italy8800 Posts
| ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7212 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On April 29 2012 02:51 Joefish wrote: I see your point but still... It seems that people aren't capable of thinking for themselves anymore. When I order a coffee I don't care if it's 190°F or 140°F. I know it's hot and should better watch out and definitely don't put it between my legs. Same goes for the mother in this case. Maybe we should banish people form our society because their stupidity could harm others and themselves? And whats most tragic about this is she won the case. Seriously.. People need to grow up The fact that she put the coffee between her legs is irrelevant. What if it accidentally spilled on her instead? What matters is the temperature of the coffee. And your argument is that coffee is hot so it doesn't matter how hot it is, which is absurd, because it would imply that anyone could served 270°F coffee or higher, but not be negligent for any damages caused. | ||
|
dbald27
United States49 Posts
| ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:03 paralleluniverse wrote: The fact that she put the coffee between her legs is irrelevant. What if it accidentally spilled on her instead? What matters is the temperature of the coffee. And your argument is that coffee is hot so it doesn't matter how hot it is, which is absurd, because it would imply that anyone could served 270°F coffee or higher, but not be negligent for any damages caused. In most other countries the claim would fall under the category "common sense". The woman was the cause of the accident and since it was not the intent of McDonalds we are looking at negligence. I do not know the specific standards on coffee and how to make it, but I remember something about the coffee getting more aroma out at a certain temperature-range. I do not know the specific claims from the case so I cannot judge it on its merits, but to me a logical claim of better coffee at the higher temperature would seem like enough of a valid reason to accept it as an acceptable practice in the field and therefore not negligence. | ||
|
BillClinton
232 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 the woman retarded because she abused the system or is the system retarded because it got abused by the woman? | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:20 radiatoren wrote: In most other countries the claim would fall under the category "common sense". The woman was the cause of the accident and since it was not the intent of McDonalds we are looking at negligence. I do not know the specific standards on coffee and how to make it, but I remember something about the coffee getting more aroma out at a certain temperature-range. I do not know the specific claims from the case so I cannot judge it on its merits, but to me a logical claim of better coffee at the higher temperature would seem like enough of a valid reason to accept it as an acceptable practice in the field and therefore not negligence. It's common sense to expect that the coffee you are being served is about 140°F, not 270°F. | ||
|
BillClinton
232 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:21 BillClinton wrote: Is the woman retarded because she abused the system or is the system retarded because it got abused by the woman? Is the bank corrupt because it steals money from the system or is the system corrupted because it allows the bank to steal money? | ||
|
SKDN
Sweden243 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
divito
Canada1213 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A central Kentucky woman is suing a dentist, accusing him of dropping a small screwdriver down her throat that migrated to her digestive tract and later required surgery to remove. In a suit filed in Fayette Circuit Court in Lexington, 71-year-old Lena David of Nicholasville said the screwdriver ended up in her digestive tract, where surgeons at St. Joseph Hospital later removed it. David is asking for an undisclosed amount of damages from Dr. W.B. Galbreath of Lexington. The file includes an X-ray, purported to be David's, which shows the silhouette of the screwdriver in her pelvic region. David's attorney, Edwin H. Clark, declined to comment on the case. Galbraith did not immediately return a message left at his office Friday by The Associated Press. The Lexington Herald-Leader first reported the lawsuit, which was filed Thursday. David said she went to Galbreath on May 26, 2011 to have composite removed from six implant entrances on her lower denture and have the implant bar cleaned. Galbreath used an instrument described as a "screwdriver" in his treatment notes and lost control of the instrument during the procedure, David claims. "Dr. Galbreath did not secure the screwdriver with dental floss or anything else during his treatment," Clark wrote in the lawsuit. In a suit filed in Fayette Circuit Court in Lexington , 71-year-old Lena David says the screwdriver ended up in her digestive tract, where surgeons at St. Joseph Hospital later removed it. Clark also noted that Galbreath did not place anything across David's mouth, such as a dental dam or oral barrier, to prevent David from swallowing an instrument. After Galbreath dropped the instrument, David "reflexively swallowed it," Clark wrote. Galbreath suggested David use the restroom and try to "gag herself until she vomited" the screwdriver, a method that did not work, Clark wrote. Galbreath then sent David to a nearby chiropractor to have x-rays done. Galbreath reviewed the x-rays and determined that the screwdriver had migrated to David's stomach, Clark wrote. "Dr. Galbreath discharged Ms. David with an instruction to eat a diet high in fiber," Clark wrote. David took the advice, but the screwdriver had become lodged in her digestive tract, Clark wrote. David went to St. Joseph Hospital on June 23, 2011 after experiencing pain in her lower right quadrant and doctors performed surgery that day by manipulating the screwdriver into David's appendix and removing it, Clark wrote. David spent six days in the hospital and "experienced a long and difficult recovery," Clark wrote. The lawsuit accuses Galbreath of dental negligence and failing to provide the degree of "care and skill ordinarily expected of a reasonably competent dental practice acting under similar circumstances." Source Just say 'NO' to tort reform. | ||
|
Marti
552 Posts
On April 28 2012 12:49 D10 wrote: Lets sue politicians for false propaganda as well There was no way to tell they werent going to do all the crap they promissed! We won't. But we should. | ||
|
heroyi
United States1064 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:34 SKDN wrote: Good that im one big sea away from america! also dont u learn about nutrition in school in US? Kinda. The system is mostly oh look a red apple is red. The apple fruit is a fruit. Here is your food pyramid. Carbohydrate and sugar and fat is spelled like this. Fat is bad grrr...etc As you can see our education in such field is quite advanced. It is one of the more neglected...classes in the US education system...its really sad. | ||
|
dotHead
United States233 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:34 SKDN wrote: Good that im one big sea away from america! also dont u learn about nutrition in school in US? I live in Philly, and my mother in law is a 6th grade science teacher. She brought in a few different kinds of vegetables and fruits for different experiments and the kids had no idea what they were. Some of the items were a Pineapple, a Coconut, Eggplant, and a few more. It's scary what kids are eating these days. | ||
|
Postaljester
United States128 Posts
| ||
|
Rebornlife
Canada224 Posts
| ||
|
Happystreet
550 Posts
On April 29 2012 02:54 Roe wrote: Since congress made pizza a vegetable, can I sue the american congress? Only one way to find out. | ||
|
LayZRR
Germany449 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Shampsky
United States21 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:20 radiatoren wrote: In most other countries the claim would fall under the category "common sense". The woman was the cause of the accident and since it was not the intent of McDonalds we are looking at negligence. I do not know the specific standards on coffee and how to make it, but I remember something about the coffee getting more aroma out at a certain temperature-range. I do not know the specific claims from the case so I cannot judge it on its merits, but to me a logical claim of better coffee at the higher temperature would seem like enough of a valid reason to accept it as an acceptable practice in the field and therefore not negligence. She was not the first person to be seriously burned. The much larger factor in that case was the fact that McDonalds had a long history of out of court settlements with victims who had been burnt by their coffee. They knew they served it at a dangerous temperature and had not changed their policy, citing that the higher temperature was necessary for quality. This creates liability on their part for knowingly maintaining a danger to customers without thoroughly warning them. They also were not conforming to food industry standards about beverage temperatures. Hidden things like that are what lead people to scream about frivolous lawsuits, despite not necessarily knowing how many others have had similar incidents and were silenced through quiet settlements. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/Portals/0/Documents/Settlement Agreement w exhibits.pdf 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. They do nothing but imply that it's healthy. That plus other evidence put into that pdf shows why the settled out of court. I find it funny that people think it's alright to mislead and lie as long as you're bad at it. When your intentions are to deceive and manipulate people into getting their money. Oh wait i know why because people are egoists, they just want to post here how stupid people are and how smart and big penis-ed they are. | ||
|
Terranist
United States2496 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:53 semantics wrote: Seems like people always just look at the wrong commercials https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/Portals/0/Documents/Settlement Agreement w exhibits.pdf They do nothing but imply that it's healthy. That plus other evidence put into that pdf shows why the settled out of court. agreed. raisin bran is widely considered a healthy and "part of a balanced breakfast" but it has the most sugar of any of the cereals on the grocery store shelf. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:51 LayZRR wrote: this is such a joke. only in america things like that can happen. (no offence!) I'm making a harsh and offensive generalization about your country. But it's okay because I'm saying no offense at the end! | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:56 Terranist wrote: agreed. raisin bran is widely considered a healthy and "part of a balanced breakfast" but it has the most sugar of any of the cereals on the grocery store shelf. Cereals companies are much better at this then nutella's marketing they never imply healthy the way nutella did, they just point out that it's high in vitamin x which is known to be good for y. Cheerios is a good example of when they cross the line, when the FDA shut down their advertisements saying that they are clinically proven to lower your cholesterol, when the FDA threatened that if they want to use wording like cheerios is a drug they would have to submit to FDA as a drug meaning the 10 year proof of testing, effects and side effects and nearly 1 billion dollars of research needed etc. Milk is another example, in the US "got milk" they focus on it being good for your bones though it's high calcium content. Never say it's healthy or get near it, as even low fat milk still has saturated fat which is bad for your heart and if you super dose in calcium that helps lead to things like prostate cancer, but calcium intake like vitamin K are both recognized to help prevent and mitigate osteoporosis even though there are more healthy ways to get that calcium then milk. If you have the balls to tell the lie and mislead people, have the balls to play it out in court, nutella clearly didn't so they settled out of court. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On April 29 2012 01:10 MadProbe wrote: Yeah, they don't outright say that Nutella is healthy. But they STRONGLY imply it. That's the whole "angle" of this ad. They DID say that feeding nutella for breakfast helps your kids eat healthy foods. Someone else has said this better before me: And yeah, it takes a moron to actually believe it-- but that's who they're marketing to. Am I the only one who thinks convincing mothers to feed their children Nutella for breakfast because it is healthy is criminal? Wouldn't you be outraged if Mcdonalds was marketed as healthy? FOR CHILDREN? That's disgusting. All I got from that commercial was that Nutella was tasty and gets kids to eat breakfast. Imagine that. Stop acting like we're all victims of advertising, shit like this will just continue until you expect people to make informed decisions. God forbid people live with their decisions, even the shitty ones. | ||
|
OpTicalRH
147 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:50 Aunvilgod wrote: Gotta love America for all these law-stories. Americans really are the most fun people on the planet. User was warned for this post True, people in America sue each other for most ridiculous stuff. Anyways, I'm going to enjoy my day with Nutella firecrackers  | ||
|
divito
Canada1213 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:53 semantics wrote: 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. What about that transcript is false? - She's a great believer in Nutella, okay... - She uses it to get her kids to eat healthy foods, just like those commercials that showcase putting cheese on vegetables. - Nutella uses wholesome and quality ingredients, uh huh. - And it doesn't have artificial colors or preservatives. To me, it doesn't imply anything about being healthy, the mom uses it as a tool to get her kids to eat something that's actually healthy, which lots of companies do actually. | ||
|
BlasiuS
United States2405 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:53 semantics wrote: Seems like people always just look at the wrong commercials https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/Portals/0/Documents/Settlement Agreement w exhibits.pdf They do nothing but imply that it's healthy. That plus other evidence put into that pdf shows why the settled out of court. I find it funny that people think it's alright to mislead and lie as long as you're bad at it. When your intentions are to deceive and manipulate people into getting their money. Oh wait i know why because people are egoists, they just want to post here how stupid people are and how smart and big penis-ed they are. this x 1000 anyone who thinks the commercials aren't misleading, try reading the bold part again, then come back and apologize for how wrong you are. | ||
|
Logrus
United States228 Posts
I'd say I've bought at least 5 jars of Nutella since 2008 It's delicious Just submitted a claim for my free $20 Shame on u nutella for making me think a puree of cream, hazelnuts, and cocoa was healthy like broccoli Shame | ||
|
TheDna
Germany577 Posts
On April 29 2012 04:00 Chargelot wrote: I'm making a harsh and offensive generalization about your country. But it's okay because I'm saying no offense at the end! Dude its the truth lol... How can you deny it? Its absolutely ridiculous and such a lawsuit would never even happen in any other country. I have to say it wont matter to ferrero one bit, 3.5m is like peanuts to them.. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
IGotPlayguuu
Italy660 Posts
| ||
|
divito
Canada1213 Posts
On April 29 2012 04:14 Logrus wrote: Shame on u nutella for making me think a puree of cream, hazelnuts, and cocoa was healthy like broccoli Therein lies the hilariousness of people and their argument against Nutella. My sides hurt from laughing! | ||
|
flowSthead
1065 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:39 screamingpalm wrote: Headline on MSN today: "Kentucky woman swallows a screwdriver, sues her dentist" which makes it sound like some trivial, frivolous lawsuit. + Show Spoiler + LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A central Kentucky woman is suing a dentist, accusing him of dropping a small screwdriver down her throat that migrated to her digestive tract and later required surgery to remove. In a suit filed in Fayette Circuit Court in Lexington, 71-year-old Lena David of Nicholasville said the screwdriver ended up in her digestive tract, where surgeons at St. Joseph Hospital later removed it. David is asking for an undisclosed amount of damages from Dr. W.B. Galbreath of Lexington. The file includes an X-ray, purported to be David's, which shows the silhouette of the screwdriver in her pelvic region. David's attorney, Edwin H. Clark, declined to comment on the case. Galbraith did not immediately return a message left at his office Friday by The Associated Press. The Lexington Herald-Leader first reported the lawsuit, which was filed Thursday. David said she went to Galbreath on May 26, 2011 to have composite removed from six implant entrances on her lower denture and have the implant bar cleaned. Galbreath used an instrument described as a "screwdriver" in his treatment notes and lost control of the instrument during the procedure, David claims. "Dr. Galbreath did not secure the screwdriver with dental floss or anything else during his treatment," Clark wrote in the lawsuit. In a suit filed in Fayette Circuit Court in Lexington , 71-year-old Lena David says the screwdriver ended up in her digestive tract, where surgeons at St. Joseph Hospital later removed it. Clark also noted that Galbreath did not place anything across David's mouth, such as a dental dam or oral barrier, to prevent David from swallowing an instrument. After Galbreath dropped the instrument, David "reflexively swallowed it," Clark wrote. Galbreath suggested David use the restroom and try to "gag herself until she vomited" the screwdriver, a method that did not work, Clark wrote. Galbreath then sent David to a nearby chiropractor to have x-rays done. Galbreath reviewed the x-rays and determined that the screwdriver had migrated to David's stomach, Clark wrote. "Dr. Galbreath discharged Ms. David with an instruction to eat a diet high in fiber," Clark wrote. David took the advice, but the screwdriver had become lodged in her digestive tract, Clark wrote. David went to St. Joseph Hospital on June 23, 2011 after experiencing pain in her lower right quadrant and doctors performed surgery that day by manipulating the screwdriver into David's appendix and removing it, Clark wrote. David spent six days in the hospital and "experienced a long and difficult recovery," Clark wrote. The lawsuit accuses Galbreath of dental negligence and failing to provide the degree of "care and skill ordinarily expected of a reasonably competent dental practice acting under similar circumstances." Source Just say 'NO' to tort reform. While I agree with the sentiment that there are very few frivolous lawsuits, tort reform does not just have to do with frivolous lawsuits. There are good reasons for tort reform, such as the fact that the law is so incredibly complicated that lay people have an impossible task to understanding the law. This, in itself, isn't necessarily a problem because lawyers exist to provide us the service of understanding the law, but I have heard even lawyers speak about the necessity of simplifying the law. There are many laws that exist today that are unnecessary or outdated that still exist on the books that should be removed (so called "blue book" laws), and there are ways to improve the efficiency of the system by simplifying the law code. It's the same thing with the tax system in the US. A flat consumption tax is not something people argue for because they want less taxes, but because it will simplify the Tax system. There is no reason for the IRS to be as large as it is, and for paying taxes to be as complicated as it is. A flat consumption tax will streamline and simplify the process of paying taxes for consumers. There will still be complications when it comes to business, but even just simplifying it for consumers will change things immensely for the benefit of the greater society. There are benefits to tort reform as there are benefits to a simpler tax system. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:53 semantics wrote: Seems like people always just look at the wrong commercials https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/Portals/0/Documents/Settlement Agreement w exhibits.pdf They do nothing but imply that it's healthy. That plus other evidence put into that pdf shows why the settled out of court. I find it funny that people think it's alright to mislead and lie as long as you're bad at it. When your intentions are to deceive and manipulate people into getting their money. Oh wait i know why because people are egoists, they just want to post here how stupid people are and how smart and big penis-ed they are. Dude please. I think people should be held responsible for their own actions. Commercials are misleading, regulations won't change that. People need to learn how to think critically, we don't need regulations to decieve people into thinking they're actually aimed at being informative. You can disagree with me, but please do it without claiming people who think the law suit is silly are only looking to show off their e-penis. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:43 Mattacate wrote: Perfect example of why the whole system is so stupid. The parents are idiotic enough to think liquid chocolate is good for you, or are so selfish they feed it to their children to get $$$ from doing so. I don't even know what to think, apart from that the idea that this woman won a court case is the beginning of the end. edit: in other news why the hell did she feed her daughter this obviously unhealthy spread without looking at the damn jar, and again WHY IS ANYONE GIVING THIS WOMAN MONEY What system? there is no system... The parents are stupid and that is it. People were gullible etc well before modern advertisement. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On April 29 2012 04:31 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: Dude please. I think people should be held responsible for their own actions. Commercials are misleading, regulations won't change that. People need to learn how to think critically, we don't need regulations to decieve people into thinking they're actually aimed at being informative. You can disagree with me, but please do it without claiming people who think the law suit is silly are only looking to show off their e-penis. k So everyone who was scammed in burney madoff's pawnze scheme disease to lose all that money, they obviously should have known better, who the fuck cares about intent or who's in the wrong the weak shall perish the strong will survive =p Odd sense of morality that we shouldn't punish exploitation of people. There will always be people who are smarter more charismatic those who can trick us, just becuase it's under a certain threshold it makes that trickery alright? 3 mil is more symbolic then punitive to ferrerio considering the size of the company which is why the lady is unlikely to get more then 2k from this, the lawyers will make off with the largest bulk of the money. the rest 2.5 mil assured for the class but up to 3 mil for the class. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
At leasg that's my take on it. Of course this is a generalization, but sometimes one has to take the history of a country to explain its structure. | ||
|
mememolly
4765 Posts
| ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On April 29 2012 04:15 TheDna wrote: Dude its the truth lol... How can you deny it? Its absolutely ridiculous and such a lawsuit would never even happen in any other country. I have to say it wont matter to ferrero one bit, 3.5m is like peanuts to them.. Israel, woman sues weatherman for false prediction: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19960318&id=0UdWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LOsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5051,4741462 Frenchmen sue Michael Jackson's doctor (France): http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/offbeat/french-fans-sue-michael-jacksons-doctor-over-emotional-damage-ncxdc-010612 if you care enough to google, you'll find many more from all around the world, and the same 10 or 12 cases from the US repeated over and over. | ||
|
Wyk
314 Posts
I shall see that woman in court, she destroyed my lifes love. Oh and if you want something healthy, dont fucking eat anything that is packed/processed. Fucking cunts. | ||
|
Dzemoo
48 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:54 Revolt wrote: this is actually true. I've never seen the logo, or motto, but if it said it was healthy for u, then it serves them right. It's partially relatable to the whole cigarette industry back then, saying that cigarettes actually had cures for things, and that they were healthy for you. so it does serve them right. Thing is though Nutella isn't unhealthy at all. No matter what type of food it is, be it a greasy ass cheese burger stuffed with bacon, in moderation it will do no harm at all. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On April 29 2012 04:42 semantics wrote: k So everyone who was scammed in burney madoff's pawnze scheme disease to lose all that money, they obviously should have known better, who the fuck cares about intent or who's in the wrong the weak shall perish the strong will survive =p Odd sense of morality that we shouldn't punish exploitation of people. There will always be people who are smarter more charismatic those who can trick us, just becuase it's under a certain threshold it makes that trickery alright? 3 mil is more symbolic then punitive to ferrerio considering the size of the company which is why the lady is unlikely to get more then 2k from this, the lawyers will make off with the largest bulk of the money. the rest 2.5 mil assured for the class but up to 3 mil for the class. 1. Madoff scammed people. 2. The people lost money. C: Madoff should pay. 1. Nutella advertised that Nutella is used to get kids to eat good food 2. Nutella puts the nutritional values on package 3. Person eats Nutella 4. Person doesn't suffer losses 5. No one was lied to C: No one should pay It's a bit hard with negatives, but I really hope you can see the difference between what Madoff did and what Nutella did without me. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
Newbistic
China2912 Posts
On April 29 2012 05:09 Roe wrote: 1. Madoff scammed people. 2. The people lost money. C: Madoff should pay. 1. Nutella advertised that Nutella is used to get kids to eat good food 2. Nutella puts the nutritional values on package 3. Person eats Nutella 4. Person doesn't suffer losses 5. No one was lied to C: No one should pay It's a bit hard with negatives, but I really hope you can see the difference between what Madoff did and what Nutella did without me. There are differences and there are similarities. The similarities are still relevant. Both nutella and Madoff were engaging in deception, they both should be punished. Would it surprise you to find out that people don't read nutrition facts, or that people don't know how to read the nutrition facts? How about if people simply trust their hard-earned life savings to people like Madoff without actually looking into the fine print and investigating how their money is used? People can't be bothered to pay attention to everything. Certain things are more important to people than others. Sometimes you just want to be able to trust something without having to second-guess. Just because Nutella's lies are seemingly (to you) less severe doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished, because people were deceived. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On April 29 2012 04:42 semantics wrote: k So everyone who was scammed in burney madoff's pawnze scheme disease to lose all that money, they obviously should have known better, who the fuck cares about intent or who's in the wrong the weak shall perish the strong will survive =p Odd sense of morality that we shouldn't punish exploitation of people. There will always be people who are smarter more charismatic those who can trick us, just becuase it's under a certain threshold it makes that trickery alright? 3 mil is more symbolic then punitive to ferrerio considering the size of the company which is why the lady is unlikely to get more then 2k from this, the lawyers will make off with the largest bulk of the money. the rest 2.5 mil assured for the class but up to 3 mil for the class. The comparison between Madoff and Nutella is ridiculous and how in hell did you manage to misspell Ponzi to "Pawnze", come on man. On April 29 2012 05:20 Newbistic wrote: There are differences and there are similarities. The similarities are still relevant. Both nutella and Madoff were engaging in deception, they both should be punished. Would it surprise you to find out that people don't read nutrition facts, or that people don't know how to read the nutrition facts? How about if people simply trust their hard-earned life savings to people like Madoff without actually looking into the fine print and investigating how their money is used? People can't be bothered to pay attention to everything. Certain things are more important to people than others. Sometimes you just want to be able to trust something without having to second-guess. Just because Nutella's lies are seemingly (to you) less severe doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished, because people were deceived. There is NO deception if people have the data and choose not to read it. And Madoff's fraudulent practices weren't written in the fine print, hence the deception. | ||
|
Harrow
United States245 Posts
| ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On April 29 2012 04:42 semantics wrote: k So everyone who was scammed in burney madoff's pawnze scheme disease to lose all that money, they obviously should have known better, who the fuck cares about intent or who's in the wrong the weak shall perish the strong will survive =p Odd sense of morality that we shouldn't punish exploitation of people. There will always be people who are smarter more charismatic those who can trick us, just becuase it's under a certain threshold it makes that trickery alright? 3 mil is more symbolic then punitive to ferrerio considering the size of the company which is why the lady is unlikely to get more then 2k from this, the lawyers will make off with the largest bulk of the money. the rest 2.5 mil assured for the class but up to 3 mil for the class. Yet again you assign me an opinion I haven't expressed. Yes, in this world there are people smarter and more charismatic than others, but how do you fail to see that YOU are deciding on completely arbitrary thresholds on when it's ok to decieve and not? | ||
|
flowSthead
1065 Posts
On April 29 2012 05:09 Roe wrote: 1. Madoff scammed people. 2. The people lost money. C: Madoff should pay. 1. Nutella advertised that Nutella is used to get kids to eat good food 2. Nutella puts the nutritional values on package 3. Person eats Nutella 4. Person doesn't suffer losses 5. No one was lied to C: No one should pay It's a bit hard with negatives, but I really hope you can see the difference between what Madoff did and what Nutella did without me. But that isn't the only way that can go. It can also go 1. Nutella advertised that Nutella is used to get kids to eat good food 2. Person sees ad and buys Nutella instead of something legitimately healthy 3. Nutella gains money from false advertising C. Nutella should be fined (or pay) Considering that most studies show that for supermarket purchases the average person takes single digit seconds (something like 7 if I recall correctly) to make a purchase decision, the idea that they should check the nutritional information for every product is unrealistic. It's not that people shouldn't be doing this and making better decisions, but rather that the burden of the law in this case rests on the company and its advertising. They have a duty not to misinform their customers. A lot of people in this thread are bringing up the nutritional information, but I highly doubt those people check the nutritional information and ingredients for every product they purchase. That means all of the fruit and vegetables, heated hot pockets, soups, noodles, meats, toothpaste, etc. There are so many purchase decisions that are done on the fly that from a governmental standpoint of protecting the consumer, it is not practical to expect them to remain informed about the relative health of each product. | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On April 29 2012 00:52 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? Just wanted to quote myself because I can see that the idiotic posts about "frivolous lawsuits" seem to be continuing. It is the role of the government to help those who cannot help themselves. No, I don't think the government should intervene in every little detail. However, the advertisements are extremely misleading. There is absolutely, positively, nothing healthy about Nutella. It's sugar and fat (and not the good kind of fat). Just like cigarette and alcohol advertisements, the goal of the advert is to convince you that Nutella is healthy. Serving suggestion is way more than what is used in the commercial. Even if you read the nutritional information, that doesn't stop the advertisement from being misleading. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
On April 29 2012 05:20 Djzapz wrote: The comparison between Madoff and Nutella is ridiculous and how in hell did you manage to misspell Ponzi to "Pawnze", come on man. There is NO deception if people have the data and choose not to read it. And Madoff's fraudulent practices weren't written in the fine print, hence the deception. I think there is an analogy in there. Pyramid schemes are illegal in the US, despite the fact that (to paraphrase what someone said earlier) "only stupid people believe them". Even if they state all their conditions up front, meaning that there is no deception involved. And yet anyone can look at the contract for a pyramid scheme and deduce "this scheme will collapse eventually, and I am likely to lose my money". Just as anyone can inspect the nutritional information on a nutella jar and conclude "I probably shouldn't eat this every single day, like that advert said I could". But people shouldn't have to. We know that these things are bad. Why not educate (or in nutella's case, require that their adverts educate) instead of saying "these people are morons and deserve to lose their money/waistline". | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On April 29 2012 05:23 flowSthead wrote: But that isn't the only way that can go. It can also go 1. Nutella advertised that Nutella is used to get kids to eat good food 2. Person sees ad and buys Nutella instead of something legitimately healthy 3. Nutella gains money from false advertising C. Nutella should be fined (or pay) Considering that most studies show that for supermarket purchases the average person takes single digit seconds (something like 7 if I recall correctly) to make a purchase decision, the idea that they should check the nutritional information for every product is unrealistic. It's not that people shouldn't be doing this and making better decisions, but rather that the burden of the law in this case rests on the company and its advertising. They have a duty not to misinform their customers. A lot of people in this thread are bringing up the nutritional information, but I highly doubt those people check the nutritional information and ingredients for every product they purchase. That means all of the fruit and vegetables, heated hot pockets, soups, noodles, meats, toothpaste, etc. There are so many purchase decisions that are done on the fly that from a governmental standpoint of protecting the consumer, it is not practical to expect them to remain informed about the relative health of each product. You obviously don't need to check every product every time you go to the supermarket. I don't check the nutrtion value for every product I purchase, but if I happen to eat something unhealthy by accident I don't blame the producer. If it's something I eat often I usually check the nutrition value. When I'm concerned about the I do some searches online to find out what kind of product is good. I don't expect watching commercials will educate.me. | ||
|
TheCzarOfAll
United States170 Posts
| ||
|
IronWolf
South Africa315 Posts
| ||
|
justindab0mb
United States213 Posts
| ||
|
Fuhrmaaj
167 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:53 semantics wrote: Seems like people always just look at the wrong commercials https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/Portals/0/Documents/Settlement Agreement w exhibits.pdf They do nothing but imply that it's healthy. That plus other evidence put into that pdf shows why the settled out of court. I find it funny that people think it's alright to mislead and lie as long as you're bad at it. When your intentions are to deceive and manipulate people into getting their money. Oh wait i know why because people are egoists, they just want to post here how stupid people are and how smart and big penis-ed they are. I disagree with the OP, I don't think that the people were dumb for thinking that nutella is healthy. I think the people knew that it was a chocolate spread and that if they sued Ferrero then it would not be worth their time to fight it in court. This is outlined in the document you posted. Most companies can't fight every single claim in court because it's expensive and time consuming, if it's below a certain value then it might be beneficial to settle out of court because then they can also control what is released to the media. I remain unconvinced that: 1) Ferrero claimed that nutella is healthy 2) Nutella is not healthy (or is unhealthy) I don't think anyone thinks that nutella is healthy in the way that brocolli is, but it can be healthy in the way that milk is. There are always people on TV that say that chocolate milk is as healthy as white milk, they just know that there's also a little chocolate in there. This doesn't negate the nutritional content of milk, but has another "unhealthy" element to it (sugar, in addition to the fat which is present in milk). Putting nutella on whole grain bread encourages children to eat whole grain bread, which is good for them - that seems clear from the commercial you've quoted. I think that nutella could have won if they had decided to fight it because the claim seems shaky at best. I don't think that nutella is a health food, but I think it's good for convincing children to eat healthy food. I'm not sure that I would go as far as to say that nutella is unhealthy - there are many breakfast cereals which are worse. The main problem to me is that "healthy food" hasn't been defined. What is healthy and what isn't? Milk could be considered unhealthy due to the fat content. Most breads and cereals have sugar in them. Tomatoes have a lot of MSG in them (which some people think is dangerous/unhealthy). I think it's tough to believe that this law suit was anything but a money grab, and I doubt that Ferrero thinks they are selling a quality health product. There are two solutions I see: either people need to lighten up about how the word "healthy" is used; or manufacturers should stop using the word healthy altogether and consumers can just guess what is healthy and what isn't. I think that people have a fairly good intuition about these things and that this law suit is frivolous. | ||
|
ets_nsm
United States38 Posts
Nutella =/= Cereal/PB&J. On the flip side, I can also see how the ad really isn't portraying Nutella as a healthy meal. It says nothing about it being healthy or whatnot. The advertisement just subtly played with people's psyche by kind of throwing ideas out there, hoping that they would stick. Either way, I think this lawsuit is good for the people. It not only serves companies like this to eliminate a line of ambiguity in order to play with the consumer's minds, but it also serves as an example for other companies notifying them, "Hey, don't try to fuck with us. We'll sue your ass" As ridiculous as everyone else wants to see this event as, lawsuits are one of the many powers we have in fighting against corporation mistreatment. Don't hate the game, the rules are there for balance. | ||
|
TheDna
Germany577 Posts
On April 29 2012 04:50 Chargelot wrote: Israel, woman sues weatherman for false prediction: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19960318&id=0UdWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LOsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5051,4741462 Frenchmen sue Michael Jackson's doctor (France): http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/offbeat/french-fans-sue-michael-jacksons-doctor-over-emotional-damage-ncxdc-010612 if you care enough to google, you'll find many more from all around the world, and the same 10 or 12 cases from the US repeated over and over. The first one is probably not even a real case and compare the french MJ case with the MJ Conrad Murray case please and talk again.. There might be some weird cases in other countries too, but not these kind of cases. They happen nowhere else in the world. And there are tons of them.. Not all of them get so much attention, but seriously the US even makes TV shows about how hilarious and bad the law is. Its seriously ridiculous and while i dont know if its really that bad in every state you cant deny the law and justice system is seriously flawed in some states... | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
I mean, a case can certainly be made that some of the ads are mildly deceptive. I personally am of the opinion that if YOU get deceived by these ads, YOU are a moron and you deserve all the consequences of your stupidity - and if you feed crazy amount of nutella to your children, well perhaps you're unfit to be a parent - because bad nutrition is one of the many ways you can screw up your child, and if you mess up there, wtf is wrong with you? On the other hand, if the government says that Nutella's ads are illegal, then why would one lady and her lawyers receive all that money? She's a moron and her lawyers just saw an opportunity to scam a company out of some money. It's so sad that nowadays people are no longer responsible for their failings. This woman's bad parenting was because of Nutella... Lol x_x? | ||
|
jobber123rd
United States501 Posts
On April 29 2012 07:06 Djzapz wrote: I think that people are going at this all wrong. I mean, a case can certainly be made that some of the ads are mildly deceptive. I personally am of the opinion that if YOU get deceived by these ads, YOU are a moron and you deserve all the consequences of your stupidity - and if you feed crazy amount of nutella to your children, well perhaps you're unfit to be a parent - because bad nutrition is one of the many ways you can screw up your child, and if you mess up there, wtf is wrong with you? On the other hand, if the government says that Nutella's ads are illegal, then why would one lady and her lawyers receive all that money? She's a moron and her lawyers just saw an opportunity to scam a company out of some money. It's so sad that nowadays people are no longer responsible for their failings. This woman's bad parenting was because of Nutella... Lol x_x? We don't know what the government has to say about it -- this wasn't a Federal Trade Commission case -- and if the suit was just a scam, then Ferrero should have fought it instead of settling (which involved not just the payment, but changing the messages in their TV advertisements, jar labels, and website). | ||
|
TheDna
Germany577 Posts
On April 29 2012 07:06 Djzapz wrote: I think that people are going at this all wrong. I mean, a case can certainly be made that some of the ads are mildly deceptive. I personally am of the opinion that if YOU get deceived by these ads, YOU are a moron and you deserve all the consequences of your stupidity - and if you feed crazy amount of nutella to your children, well perhaps you're unfit to be a parent - because bad nutrition is one of the many ways you can screw up your child, and if you mess up there, wtf is wrong with you? On the other hand, if the government says that Nutella's ads are illegal, then why would one lady and her lawyers receive all that money? She's a moron and her lawyers just saw an opportunity to scam a company out of some money. It's so sad that nowadays people are no longer responsible for their failings. This woman's bad parenting was because of Nutella... Lol x_x? Your ignorance almost makes me see this whole case in a different light. The government and the laws are there to protect the MORONS and weak people.. Thats what its there for. If this indeed is in any way deceives people the lawsuit is legit. But i very much doubt thats the case.. | ||
|
BreakfastBurrito
United States893 Posts
| ||
|
how
United States538 Posts
| ||
|
kinsky
Germany368 Posts
| ||
|
DropTester
Australia608 Posts
On April 29 2012 07:28 jobber123rd wrote: We don't know what the government has to say about it -- this wasn't a Federal Trade Commission case -- and if the suit was just a scam, then Ferrero should have fought it instead of settling (which involved not just the payment, but changing the messages in their TV advertisements, jar labels, and website). fighting it means that that there would be more publicity around the fact that nutella isn't healthy. Why they dont want to incorrectly advertise that, they still dont want to announce to the whole world that it is unhealthy, or possibly how unhealthy it is. I think that they did settle for abit too much...or should have tried to fight it to stop future incidents | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 29 2012 07:28 jobber123rd wrote: We don't know what the government has to say about it -- this wasn't a Federal Trade Commission case -- and if the suit was just a scam, then Ferrero should have fought it instead of settling (which involved not just the payment, but changing the messages in their TV advertisements, jar labels, and website). It was probably cheaper to just settle than to fight it. Anyone who believes a chocolate paste is healthy has some obvious problems. Abuse of the system imho. What is disturbing though is the amount of attention and outcry given to these things and the lack of attention and outcry for actual problems (like say, police abuse, CISPA, Government agents requiring mass slaughter of pigs on a private farm in WI, etc. etc.). | ||
|
DidYuhim
Ukraine1905 Posts
| ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
Forgive me if I don't cry my heart out for poor nutella, whose false advertising was okay since only stupid people would believe it. | ||
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
The way Nutelle ads show here, they really hint/imply that their product is great for health. It's only when I actually read the nutritional values that I realized that it was as bad as a chocolate bar. So obviously, people should know it's not healthy... but their ad really is a misleading one.. (This is my observation even when I disregard the ridiculous lawsuit. I don't think she should have won money but definitely that the company should change their marketing direction because it is false.) | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Stormgate  25874Calm  5712Bisu 1918Horang2 899actioN 480BeSt 453Soulkey 365Snow 159hero 134TY  44[ Show more ] Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games singsing3224 FrodaN2120 Beastyqt1238 hiko964 Lowko763 Fuzer  196Hui .172 KnowMe150 ArmadaUGS133 Trikslyr70 QueenE32 MindelVK28 Dewaltoss26 |
|
Replay Cast
SOOP
GSL Qualifier
WardiTV Spring Champion…
ByuN vs TriGGeR
SC Evo League
BSL Season 20
DragOn vs OctZerg
Artosis vs Doodle
Replay Cast
SOOP
SOOP
Zoun vs Solar
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
