Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 28 of 28

Thread: McDonalds settlement... sigh!

  1. #26
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

    "Well, that puts a huge burden of proof on the individual," you complain. Precisely- just like the burden of proof required when finding anyone guilty of anything. As for the $8.5 million dollar settlement being a "slap on the wrist," that could not be more irrelevent. McDonalds should not have to pay a cent unless it can be proved that they:

    a.) made the original announcement without good faith that they would be able to reduce the trans-fat

    b.) deliberately with-held information of their failure to do so from the public (which is different than "didn't run a multi-million dollar marketing campaign to announce the fattyness of their foods")
    and

    c.) demonstrably harmed someone as a result

    Just because a company has a lot of money does NOT mean it is "okay" to judicially mandate a donation- even to a worthy cause. In some cases, where actual harm occurs from actual negligence, a punishment is merited. This would not seem to be such a case (in the actual case, McDonalds has not admitted any guilt- in effect, they were judicially blackmailed for $8.5 million dollars).
    First, I don't think it's a huge burden at all. It's probably exactly what was written in the complaint.

    Second, McDonald's size is completely relevant. Punitive damages, when imposed, are imposed with a view to cause a change in behavior in the tortfeasor. This is the regulatory effect of which I wrote earlier.

    Third, there was no "judicial imposition" of anything; this was a settlement.

    And fourth (ok, it's out of order), the assertion that McDonald's can only do harm by withholding information is utterly specious. They made a big to-do about changing something that could reasonably be expected to cause some people to change their behavior (eat fries) - that's why they made the big to-do in the first place. Failing to make an equally big to-do about not doing what they said they were going to do creates a condition in which some people will inadvertently do something they would not otherwise do. In fact, they could have a problem unless they could show that they made a genuinely good-faith effort to inform customers of the delay. Whether there is real harm to those people is a matter for a jury.

    McDonald's settled another case recently, where they were accused of misrepresenting their fries as not containing animal products. They were sued by a number of religious groups (including Hindus) and vegetarians. How do you measure that harm? You might think it was inconsequential - they might think they're going to Hell. Put a number on that.

    I cannot for the life of me understand why you think McDonald's - or any company, or any individual - should be able to act in a way that causes harm with impunity. You seem to think that unless they did something that smells bad - something wicked - they should just be let alone.

    Have you ever been in a car wreck?

  2. #27
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948

    "Burger King thumbs its nose at the food police"

    http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USATOD...0032&oliID=213

    At least a Burger King isn't jumping entirely on the band wagon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin
    Are all people in the world so unaccountable for their own actions and decisions, or is this affliction limited only to Americans? Of course, McDs is a "big business," so they must be inherently evil- and the American Heart Association is a very noble association. So, nix all the above- we should all continue to file insipid lawsuits against any corporation with deep pockets...
    Either folks don't want to take the blame for their own eating habits (no one forced them to eat at McD's or BK) or they don't like the odds of playing lotto and thought they might give a lawsuit a try. Most fast food is junk food and it doesn't even pretend to be real food - that's what makes it good. When's the last time you made a homemade burger that had the same texture, color and taste as a McDonald's burger? Take one look at the "beef" part and you know that thing can't be good for your health. But you gotta have it once and awhile.

  3. #28
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United States
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedi
    Well, a Big Mac's a Big Mac, but in Quebec they call it le Big-Mac.:bbg:
    *laughs* What do they call the Whopper?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. $500 Million Dollar Settlement Means.....
    By Cindy Hamlin in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-20-2003, 05:55 PM
  2. Thank God the Judge had a Brain! (McDonald's Lawsuit)!
    By Cindy Hamlin in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-23-2003, 03:23 PM
  3. FTC ruling about Contact lenses on the Internet
    By MVEYES in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-09-2002, 08:23 AM
  4. 1800Contacts and Vistakon Settlement
    By Cindy Hamlin in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-26-2001, 08:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •