McDonalds case shot down.

[Arvon]

No big deal...remember the tobacco cases? The first ones were lost by the plantif. The trial lawyers kept it up and made Billions out of it. This is only round one. A nail, a stump, a rusty razor blade, a can of gas, and a match for trial lawyers (if you know that old joke).

[ 01-22-2003, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Arvon ]

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: This was obviously gonna fail from the start. Hooray for my profession for at least one day.

I'm just curious, why do you say it was "obviously" going to fail?

[Timber Loftis]

Because it's so silly.

This attempts to tag off of the "tobacco litigation" theory, blaming the industry for eons of harm caused. But, in tobacco litigation, the only tobacco companies on the hook were those who had LIED for years and MANIPULATED the product to induce addiction. It was MALICE for PROFIT.

McDonald's publishes the ingredients to its stuff and is quite open about it all. And, is inspected not only at the corporate level but also at each individual restaurant on a regular basis - because it's food and we have health inspectors. You can't make the argument you were duped into years of consuming french fries. Nor can you argue they manipulated the product to addict you.

But, I predict many more silly-type cases based on the tobacco litigation theories.

[SecretMaster]

This was a stupid case anyway, glad it was done with.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Arvon: No big deal...remember the tobacco cases? The first ones were lost by the plantif. The trial lawyers kept it up and made Billions out of it. This is only round one. A nail, a stump, a rusty razor blade, a can of gas, and a match for trial lawyers (if you know that old joke).

Probably only round one, but still doubtful anyone will make it too much further in the legal system on the same grounds.

With the tobacco industry there were always the lingering facts that there is no health or safe "dose", that industry officials knew, yet denied, it's health implications, that some were hooked before the warnings were mandated, second-hand smokers were put at risk, etc. I say that as a smoker who is a complete idiot for starting the nasty habit despite the health warnings. Of course, I was only 17, and ALL 17 year-olds know you'll live forever, so Timber, do I have a case? [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Another interesting case I saw mentioned on MSNBC is a possible one against Weight Watchers. They haven't filed a suit, but they're currently exploring the options by feeling out the media and public for their response. The case they're trying to make is that WW should be held responsible for false advertising or some such non-sense because some people(alot actually) that lost the weight gained it back after going off the system. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

I lost 75lbs with WW, but after finishing the program, I went back to eating a sausage biscuit with a side of hash rounds for breakfast, a double Whopper and fries for lunch, and a large Meatlover's Pizza for dinner everyday. Other than that, the only bad changes I made was to start visiting Dairy Queen and Duncan Donuts for snacks 8 or 9 times a week, but I'm still drinking my 6 glasses of water.

WW these days doesn't promote itself as a diet. They promote it as a way to achieve a lifestyle change, but if you revert to the old lifestyle after reaching your goal weight, it's pretty obvious the weight's coming back. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Didn't Forrest Gump's momma used to say, "Stupid is, as stupid does"?


[ 01-22-2003, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[johnny]

Originally posted by Horatio: These people were either extremely ignorant or money-grabbers. Or both.

They also were extremely fat, and blamed McDonalds for that. Like if McDonalds was forcing them to stuff all that junk down their throats.

[Lavindathar]

Originally posted by johnny: They also were extremely fat, and blamed McDonalds for that. Like if McDonalds was forcing them to stuff all that junk down their throats.

Exactly.