Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Judge Throws Out Obesity Suit Against McDonald's

Double D · 09-04-2003, 03:30 PM

Well, I suppose now McD's can breath easily and go back to the lab and work on a new flavor *McFrankenstein creation.*
IMO, this was a frivolous lawsuit with no merit.
------------------------------------------
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...t&section=news
Thu September 4, 2003 05:12 PM ET

By Gail Appleson
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Thursday threw out a revised lawsuit against McDonald's Corp. that accused the largest fast food company of using misleading advertising to lure children into eating unhealthy foods that make them fat.

U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet had previously dismissed the plaintiffs' original case but allowed them to submit a new filing with information backing up their advertising allegations.

In dismissing the current suit, Sweet said the plaintiffs had not followed his detailed instructions and he barred them from filing another version, quelling litigation fears the suit had sparked in the food industry.

"The plaintiffs have made no explicit allegations that they witnessed any particular deceptive advertisement and they have not provided McDonald's with enough information to determine whether its products are the cause of the alleged injuries," Sweet said.

"Finally, the one advertisement which plaintiffs implicitly allege to have caused their injuries is objectively non-deceptive," he said.

The suit raised fears in the food industry of a new wave of tobacco-like litigation against restaurants and manufacturers. The possibility of bringing more suits over fattening foods was the focus of a seminar during the spring in Boston attended by anti-tobacco lawyers.

Indeed, when the judge threw out the first case in January, he left the door open to further litigation. In that ruling he referred to Chicken McNuggets as a "McFrankenstein creation" made of elements not used in home cooking.

Responding to Thursday's ruling, McDonald's spokeswoman Lisa Howard said the company has maintained all along that its advertisements are "truthful, accurate and fair."

At least one Wall Street analyst said the lawsuit was not a factor in the stock's value.

"The obesity lawsuits have very little implication for the stock because the industry hasn't been demonized enough by the plaintiffs' lawyers for investors to care," said Howard Penney, restaurant analyst with SunTrust Robinson Humphrey.

Shares of McDonald's, which also on Thursday announced improved August sales in its major markets of the United States and Europe, rose 70 cents to close at $23.39 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Sweet had said in January the plaintiffs could amend the suit with information backing their claim that diners have no idea what is really in their food or that the products have allegedly become more harmful because of processing.

Although the plaintiffs' lawyer initially refiled the suit with the allegation that consumers were unaware of the health hazards of processed food, he dropped the claim in June.

The new filing, and Sweet's decision, thus focused primarily on deceptive advertising claims. But Sweet's decision also precludes plaintiffs from developing the case surrounding the harmfulness of processed foods in the future.

Sweet said he had warned the plaintiffs that they had to make specific allegations about particular advertisements that could have caused their injuries and to give details about the connection between those injuries and eating McDonald's foods.

"They have failed to remedy the defects of the initial complaint in the face of those warnings," Sweet said.

The two plaintiffs in the case, which sought class action status, were born in 1984 and 1988. McDonald's lawyers had argued that the plaintiffs were too young to have seen or be affected by the 1987 print ads attached as exhibits in the suit. The plaintiffs' lawyer could not be immediately reached for comment. (With additional reporting by Lauren Weber and Deborah Cohen)

09-04-2003, 03:30 PM	#1 (permalink)
Double D Junkie Location: Chicagoland	Judge Throws Out Obesity Suit Against McDonald's Well, I suppose now McD's can breath easily and go back to the lab and work on a new flavor McFrankenstein creation. IMO, this was a frivolous lawsuit with no merit. ------------------------------------------ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...t&section=news Thu September 4, 2003 05:12 PM ET By Gail Appleson NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Thursday threw out a revised lawsuit against McDonald's Corp. that accused the largest fast food company of using misleading advertising to lure children into eating unhealthy foods that make them fat. U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet had previously dismissed the plaintiffs' original case but allowed them to submit a new filing with information backing up their advertising allegations. In dismissing the current suit, Sweet said the plaintiffs had not followed his detailed instructions and he barred them from filing another version, quelling litigation fears the suit had sparked in the food industry. "The plaintiffs have made no explicit allegations that they witnessed any particular deceptive advertisement and they have not provided McDonald's with enough information to determine whether its products are the cause of the alleged injuries," Sweet said. "Finally, the one advertisement which plaintiffs implicitly allege to have caused their injuries is objectively non-deceptive," he said. The suit raised fears in the food industry of a new wave of tobacco-like litigation against restaurants and manufacturers. The possibility of bringing more suits over fattening foods was the focus of a seminar during the spring in Boston attended by anti-tobacco lawyers. Indeed, when the judge threw out the first case in January, he left the door open to further litigation. In that ruling he referred to Chicken McNuggets as a "McFrankenstein creation" made of elements not used in home cooking. Responding to Thursday's ruling, McDonald's spokeswoman Lisa Howard said the company has maintained all along that its advertisements are "truthful, accurate and fair." At least one Wall Street analyst said the lawsuit was not a factor in the stock's value. "The obesity lawsuits have very little implication for the stock because the industry hasn't been demonized enough by the plaintiffs' lawyers for investors to care," said Howard Penney, restaurant analyst with SunTrust Robinson Humphrey. Shares of McDonald's, which also on Thursday announced improved August sales in its major markets of the United States and Europe, rose 70 cents to close at $23.39 on the New York Stock Exchange. Sweet had said in January the plaintiffs could amend the suit with information backing their claim that diners have no idea what is really in their food or that the products have allegedly become more harmful because of processing. Although the plaintiffs' lawyer initially refiled the suit with the allegation that consumers were unaware of the health hazards of processed food, he dropped the claim in June. The new filing, and Sweet's decision, thus focused primarily on deceptive advertising claims. But Sweet's decision also precludes plaintiffs from developing the case surrounding the harmfulness of processed foods in the future. Sweet said he had warned the plaintiffs that they had to make specific allegations about particular advertisements that could have caused their injuries and to give details about the connection between those injuries and eating McDonald's foods. "They have failed to remedy the defects of the initial complaint in the face of those warnings," Sweet said. The two plaintiffs in the case, which sought class action status, were born in 1984 and 1988. McDonald's lawyers had argued that the plaintiffs were too young to have seen or be affected by the 1987 print ads attached as exhibits in the suit. The plaintiffs' lawyer could not be immediately reached for comment. (With additional reporting by Lauren Weber and Deborah Cohen)