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).
Bookmarks