|
As I've done in previous threads, I have to defend the so-called "frivolous" lawsuits and everyone's right to file them.
As far as this suit goes, I honestly think that there's some merit to it. The accussation of misleading advertising could easily prove out based on what I've read above and in other spots. If you replace "low-tar" or "light" cigarettes as the product with like "low fat potato chips". We all love chips - they go with anything. You see the lower fat ones on the shelf and buy them thinking that you're doing yourself some good, only a few days later you suffer what's politely referred to as "anal leakage". There is a reason that warning is on the bag of chips - the manufacturer wants to be able to point out that a "prudent" person would have known about the issues/side effects of chips made with Olestra. There was no warning on "light" cigarettes saying that the health differences between them and the regular kind were negilible. If there had been, this would be a truely frivolous suit since consumers should have known. As it stands, the manufacturer misled their customers.
I will grant that there is a problem in the country with class action lawyers filing suit to line their own pockets, but there are lots of examples of class action suits bringing real, lasting change. The classic example is car safety which didn't even exist in the early 60's.
Ngdawg, do you realize that you gave 3 examples where you had been screwed over by the companies you did business with? A bank overcharged you (and all their customers), a car dealer did the same and when Metlife went from a mutual to a publicly traded company, you got a dividend (you'll have to explain why you have a problem with that since it was not a class action in any way). If you went to McDonalds and bought a cup of coffee for $0.98 and they charged you $3.98, you'd be upset, right? How is this different?
The MetLife deal happened because you were technically a stockholder in that company by having a policy with them (what's referred to as a mutual). When they went public, they had to pay off all the stockholders, and you should have received some form of stock as a part of the deal unless you accepted a buyout offer (and a lot of people did).
Going back to the McDonald's coffee example, I think that everyone here needs to look at the actual facts of the case, as have been pointed out on previous threads. The allegation wasn't that the coffee was too hot but that it was served in an unsecured container that spilled easily. The claimant tried to settle out of court several times but McDonald's wouldn't budge (nor would their insurance company, and I actually know those guys very well).
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|