304
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
304 points (93.9% liked)
Not The Onion
11017 readers
65 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The way the headline is worded makes me think it’s trying to spark outrage and debate against the woman suing.
But also boy did I learn my lesson about not judging Joe Shmoe vs Corporate after learning more about the McDonald’s hot coffee case.
I’m gonna withhold judgement and see where this ends up!
The McDonald's lady required skin grafts. This woman suffered mild disappointment. There is no possible comparison between the two cases. False advertising? Yes. Refer to FTC for penalties. Harm suffered? Virtually zero. This is a frivolous lawsuit and waste of any court's time.
It's a class action lawsuit. It represents the rights of an entire group, even if it's only a single person bringing forward the suit. It's not about the harm done to a single person.
If a thief steals one dollar from a thousand people, you could say "oh, that person only lost a dollar" or you could say "that thief stole a thousand dollars". The harm suffered to each individual was minimal, but harm was suffered, and if you add it all up, a lot of harm was done. That's not frivolous.
Yes, I read the court filing. The only problem is that the collective value of the suffering caused by this particular false advertising would be worth about a dollar fifty. The only people who win from this kind of lawsuit are the lawyers.
I would not be making fun of this suit if it was about Hershey's lead and cadmium problem:
https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/2023/10/consumer-reports-urges-hersheys-to-get-heavy-metals-out-of-chocolate-products/
Once again, there was no harm suffered.
Americans will sue over everything and anything
I think that’s what the headline is trying to get you to say. And we had the same reaction with the McDonald’s case. But I hope we’re getting a bit wiser that when the story is spun this way it’s not too far out there to think that the corporation could have employed a media consultant to help spin this as “Americans sue over everything this case is dumb” when in reality there might be a good case under there that it’s easy to dismiss or ignore.
I suspect that’s the low hanging spin for corporations who are being held accountable. “Don’t sue us, that’s dumb! Look how dumb she’s being. Entitled! Money grab!”
I totally agree with the notion that the article is meant to illicit that thinking as well as it being false advertising, but at the same time this particular case doesn't have quite the same impact as the McDonald's Coffee case. Nobody is physically being harmed by the candy not having a face. What could be deeper than simply the disappointment of not seeing that little jack-o'-lantern face when you unwrap the peanut butter cup?
Do you want companies to follow the law or not? Why even have truth in advertising laws if no one is going to enforce them?