Jacob Sullum, Reason, “Unfair Food” (May print edition):
Obese people who blame restaurant chains or other food sellers for making them fat face a daunting obstacle when try to recover damages in court: They have to show that a particular company is responsible for their obesity. But Richard Daynard, a Northeastern University law professor who runs the Obesity and Law Project at the Public Health Advocacy Institute, thinks he has found a solution: suing food companies under state consumer protection laws, which “avoids complicated causation issues.”
Savor that phrase: “avoids complicated causation issues.” Then rework it into the language of the non-litigious lay person. Here’s what I came up with: “TRY TO PROVE YOU AREN’T TO BLAME! AND BESIDES, GUILT IS RELATIVE AND EXPANSIVE! SO BEND OVER, BABY!”
In the January issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Daynard and a co-author note that most these statutes “do not require showing that the defendant’s misbehavior caused a specific illness.” Indeed, “man state consumer protection statutes do not require a showing that individual plaintiffs relied on the [defendant’s] misrepresentations.”
What Princess Leigh-Cheri ever saw in Ralph Nader I’ll never understand…
But I digress
Shortly after the article appeared, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) took Daynard’s advice and ran with it, announcing a lawsuit against Kellogg, maker of sugary breakfast cereals and other products the center thinks kids should not be eating, and Viacom, owner of TV channels and cartoon characters used to market “nutritionally poor” food to children. Joined by the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and two parents, CSPI said it planned to seek billions of dollars in damages under a Massachusetts law prohibiting “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”
…like, say, suggesting a talking tiger wearing an ascot really does exist…?
The lawsuit argues that children “are intrinsically deceived and abused by encouragement to eat unhealthy junk foods” and are therefore injured every time they see an ad for Apple Jacks on Nickelodeon or a box of Sponge Bob SquarePants Pop-Tarts in the supermarket. By CSPI’s reckoning, each such exposure is worth at least $25 in statutory damages, whether or not parents actually buy the food.
Which begs the question: how much are children “intrinsically deceived and abused by encouragement to” bring frivolous nuisance suits in the name of the “public interest” that violate the individual’s right to choice, and how much is that worth in statutory damages? After all, parents, not children, buy the cereal—and feeding a kid a bowl of Corn Pops is not on par with keeping them chained in a closet or molesting them, no matter how much CSPI claims otherwise, so there’s no standing to make the claim for “abuse” on the part of the parent.
Hard to put a price tag on the creation of a new generation of the victim culture, though doing so creates quite the financial incentive for litigators.
And since a suit brought under consumer protection laws “avoids complicated causation issues,” perhaps its time somebody got the bright idea to sue the ABA under such terms…
My Super Sugar Crisp sure would be thankful.
****
update: Besides, seems like these lawyerly types have an abundance of time on their hands. Perhaps putting some of them on trial would keep them busy—at least to the point where they aren’t spending their time analyzing posting patterns in order to level a nearly explicit smear against their ideological rivals.
More here. And my progressive friend Jeralyn at TalkLeft sums it up best: “it’s creepy”.
Well, at least he doesn’t have a Malkin doll that he likes to burn with cigarettes in strange places.
That we know of, I mean.
Jeff, please, the all-caps thing isn’t working. It’s just a gratuitous violation of the rule of the intertrons… the one that says “please don’t type in all caps.”
Re: causation. It’s actually not entirely a trivial issue, from a legal perspective. “Causation” isn’t just some way of determining whodunnit, but actually has some independent content.
What does the ABA do? They don’t bring lawsuits. Maybe ATLA, but even then, I don’t think they bring lawsuits.
Question begging indeed.
Who the hell cares? If causality doesn’t meant jack-shit anymore, anyone can sure anyone at anytime.
I’m still waiting for a class action suit by smokers demanding reasonable accomodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
You still need the behavior. You still need the practice that is claimed to be an unfair or deceptive trade practice.
I’ve heard the ADA doesn’t define disability, but I doubt they’d get much accomodations. Go for it!
Structural logic question:
Should it be legal for RJ Reynolds to advertise cigarettes on morning kids shows, with a host of animated, talking animals touting the yuminess of tobacco?
Just another example of why the “Loser Pays” paragigm needs to be enacted into the US legal system as it exists in Britain. How may of these
slimy, ambulance-chasing, class-action, “public interest” lawyers would be clogging the system with their “waste-of-everybodys-time” lawsuits if they were putting their own time and money at risk instead of just lining their pockets by skimming 30-40% of any judgements directly into their bank accounts.
Peter Angelos bought the Orioles using his millions “earned” by bring asbestos-related class action suits, many of which have recently been exposed as supported by fraudulent doctors that diagnosed non-existing conditions in lots of the cases. Not unlike the silicon implant class action suits that have been scientifically debunked, but not until after Corning was forced into bankruptcy.
We have allowed the tort system to become a lottery for shyster lawyers to use to rape corporate America and taxpayers while they become ever weathier. The Trial Lawyers are the largest single special interest group funding the Democrat party, ahead of even the Municipal Employees, Teachers Unions and Greens. Just look at the campaign financing reports from the recent Kerry-Edwards ticket if you don’t believe me! I guess that last point also explains why there’s been no attempt at any real reform.
TW – straight..as in I’m trying to set the record straight.
True enough. There’s an economic literature on causal apportionment, and it’s quite a tangle (start with the Rizzo-Kaye stuff). An enjoyable bunch of reading nonetheless.
My personal opinion is that by “complicated” Prof. Daynard means “in all probability adverse to the outcome desired by plaintiffs.”
I am not a lawyer, although I used to build mazes and kibble-dispensers for them.
Exactly the point Percy Dovetonsils.
Let me put it in a way even Actus might be able to comprehend. Ok, concentrate…try not to just be thinking of a snide comment to make, actually think about the issue.
Point is when you don’t have to show causation then every lawsuite brought is begging the question as Jeff was above. Ask yourself this, how is Jeff’s lawsuit fundamentally any different than the lawsuit being brought by the CSPI? They can’t show causation for anything. All they have is their assertion that
It’s totally subjective. Why can’t I sue Sony Pictures under consumer protection laws because I believe that children are intrinsically decieved and abused by encouragement (ads) to see movies that encourage them to behave in ways I find harmfull (promiscuity, drug use etc)? Truth is it’s not different and if that ever became the standard then our economic system would collapse (I’m not saying it will, I’m sure if this type of thing became popular eventually congress would step in or the courts).
Think about it Actus. You like it right now because its your liberal buddies filing the lawsuits. But wait until the social consevatives who have very little libertarian leanings in them figure this thing out. They could find favorable jurisdictions in the midwest and sue all kinds of businesses they find objectionable (movie studios, alchohol, music, media etc).
Sure. And they have to prove there is overall harm and deception. But they don’t need to prove for every child harmed to the tune of $25 which commercials each child watched and which persons broadcast each of those commercials.
Sure. Go for It. I’d love to settle this question of harm from all sorts of commercials once and for all. I’m not happy kids are raised by advertising.
Any discussion of Daynard should include his pioneering work in developing anti-tobacco litigation. If he’s as successful with your Super Sugar Crisp, in five years it will cost $25 box, which will be OK with Kellogg. About $21 of the price will allegedly be directed to anti-cereal-consumption programs run by state governments. Although to keep the revenue stream up, they’ll declare a transportation emergency and use the money to fix potholes.
Short sentences, 2-3 syllables each word:
See Dick run. See Actus swoon. People on the Right make Actus go crazy!
Actus likes Law. Actus becomes law-person, chase ambulance. Social Justice!
Bill,
The question is not should they be allowed to do it but should they be able to be sued for doing it, when there is no underlying harm that can be shown, by utilizing consumer protection laws.
So the answer to your question is yes they should. However, they won’t for a myriad of reasons including the fact that years down the line when the kids they enticed to smoke by advertising on Nichelodean grow up and start getting cancer those warnings on the pack won’t effectively shield them from liability anymore. The smokers will say the tobacco companies hooked them before they could appreciate the meaning and gravity of the warnings etc.
Fine: The ABA admits lawyers who bring cases such as this. There’s the behavior. They claim to have things like an ethics code; that’s clearly a deceptive trade practice.
Bill: Yes. It should be legal.
(In fact, I’m not sure it’s illegal now; I doubt the networks want the trouble it’d bring, and for that matter the tobacco companies don’t want that trouble either.
Especially since not only do children not buy products directly, in general, but I don’t think they can buy cigarettes in any state, and their parents are generally very unwilling to buy them for them. And those that are willing, well, are very likely to end up with kids that smoke anyway, I expect.)
But that’s the crazy libertarian in me, thinking that any sort of advertisement of any legal product should be allowed, as long as the sort of advertisement itself involves no illegal acts; advertising via graffitti would not, for example, as it’s a property violation itself. But I don’t mean “illegal advertising” as in “anything the state decides shouldn’t be advertised To Save The Whoever”.
I’d prefer this lay-person formulation: “CAUSATION SCHMAUZATION! YOU’RE THE ONE’S GONNA PAY FOR THIS, ‘CAUSE YOU GOT THE MONEY, WE DON’T LIKE YOU, AND THE GUMMINT SAYS WE CAN!”
It bears a strong similarity to the “reasoning” that liberals use when thinking about how taxes ought to be paid, now that I think about it …
So much the worse for the statute, I’d say. And yes, that’s a bald-faced “ought statement” on my part…
Guys, read a little law and economics. Market share liability has been around for a few decades now. Miraculously, civilization has survived.
That loud “WOOOOSH” you just heard what yet another relatively simple point sailing majestically over actus’ tiny head.
As for Sean Penn and his predilection for abusing his Ann Coulter doll, can we take up a collection to purchase him an Andrea Yates doll he can bathe with?
I’m gonna need a legal primer here. Someone (anyone?) subjectively thinks (believes?) that a particular product is bad (not good?) for someone (anyone?), soooo…each time said product is advertised in some form, the manufacturer, advertiser and the distributor can be effectively fined $25. Do I have that right? Oh…and the suer who subjectively believes that the product is harmful doesn’t have to ….um…actually prove that the product is harmful.
As one who fights the uh…bulge and is concerned about carbs, I have more than a passing familiarity with Nutrition Labels. I think I am right in saying that the “serving size” is listed on just about any product one buys. I would venture to say (subjectively) that if one limited ones intake to the “serving size” on the product label, there would be no obese children. Now if one eats five servings in one sitting, one would tend to be obese.
My guess is that an aggressive defense could be that the “serving size” is listed on the product packaging. Something about “not in any way harmful, even beneficial, when taken in moderation”.
Oh, and acthole doesn’t want Advertiser’s raising children. Funny…I thought that is what parents were for. Something about parental supervision. But we wouldn’t want to assign responsibility where it belongs, would we?
Whats unfair about that?
The ABA publishes model rules, but its the courts and the individual state bars that decide whether and how to apply them. Not so clear that its a deceptive trade practice to have an ethical code.
But you should totally try this case.
Sometimes I think my obvious points are missed on people who just don’t get it.
Actus:
avoids. complicated. causation. issues.
think about it…
I’d recommend reading more than a little. We’re not all talking about the extensive margin for civilization here. There’s some literature that suggests a Sindell-type rule has adverse consequences on investment in product safety (see e.g. Speir 1990; also Marino, Delgado, Rose-Ackerman). I’m not saying that’s the final word (Shavell and an army of others disagree with Speir), but as a former Law and Economics professor I can say that the efficiency pronouncements we make about rules like Sindell are generally highly qualified and limited to specific circumstances (market structures, ranges of elasticities, that sort of thing).
Actus:
Asshole. With. The. IQ. Of. A. Below-Average. Chicken.
think about it …
And how many of the poor kiddies are buying their own breakfast cereal? Doesn’t Mom (or Dad) have any say over what their grubs consume?
I know. Its a complicated causation issue to look at each child, what precise harm they suffered, and due to what commercials. Its not so complicated to look at an overall harm from an industry. That’s what they’re talking about.
Warning labels you will soon see on children’s cereal:
“In all likelihood, use of this product may lead to massive physical, psychological or emotional disability which may lead to your death or at the very least extreme social stigmatization. This product should not be used by anyone, so use at your own risk. Use of this product indicates a complete abdication of your rights as a human being.”
It’s almost like tort lawyers are begging for us to restrain them.
That said, I’m suing you Goldstein, for showing me a never-ending stream dedicated to the idea that personal responsibility is dead. I’ll settle for PIE, as long as it contains no health benefits.
Not complicated, but not lacking in complications.
Christ, actus, I’m starting to sound like you.
That “WOOOSH” is getting louder.
Learn a little law.
Market share liability is the apportionment of DAMAGES without the proof of actually causing the HARM alleged (or proven) – simply by percentage of “market share”. Implemented to spare the plaintiffs bar from having to actually show that it was certain defendants products that actually, you know, did hurt the plaintiff.
Market Share liability still requires proof (or admission) of HARM/DAMAGES. You seemed to have missed that point.
Josh,
Courts have been very reluctant to extend market share liability theory past DES and other pharmaceutical cases.
For example, courts have refused to apply MSL in gun manufacturer lawsuits. Also, New Jersey has categorically excluded products liability cases from market share liability.
Incidentally, even in MSL cases, the plaintiff has to prove that the product/conduct OF THE INDUSTRY caused the injury. So, while they don’t have to prove that Kellogg caused the injury, they would have to prove that the cereals industry caused the injury.
NOTE: it’ doesn’t look like these lawyers are using MSL, but some state laws for consumers. I have no idea what that’s about.
ALSO: IANAL.
So I’ve spent my youth eating nothing but junk food of all kinds and now eating nothing but junk food, and drinking 3-4 nights a week. Oh yeah, I never exercise. I’m obese and have health problems that will no doubt lead to my untimely demise and/or pain and suffering.
OK, Actus, who is responsible for my condition?
Damn. I clearly did not jump on that quick enough or refresh the page when I should have.
TW: work, as in, “I was busy doing work instead of responding on Jeff’s website.”
Of course not.
“responsible” to me ties in fault with causation, so its hard to say.
Dr Steve and Gabriel Major,
Thank you for your responses. I am aware of the problems with MSL and I was not defending MSL on the merits. I was merely pointing out that it is not some new radical idea cooked up by Daynard. The tone of the post and comments suggested many are under that misapprehension.
Major John, just read the excerpt.
Emphasis added.
This is clearly about market share liability, not demonstrating that sugary foods cause obesity.
Hey y’all, watch this! (warning: non-lawyer opining on the law)
So this is all about The Children? Hmmm, just how do these children have standing to bring suit or claim damages? Wouldn’t the plaintiff’s share (paltry that it may be compared to that of their brilliant legal representatives) actually go the the parent(s) of said victims? And why are The Children victims in the first place? Why are they ‘being raised by commercials’ as one childless (but childish) airhead asserted? Perhaps because their parent(s) have failed in the discharge of their own parental duties? For which failure they stand to share in a bounty from their own incompetence? How can anyone ever think that Sugar Coated Super Chocolate Sugar Bombs, or any such product, contains anything other than what the name clearly states?
Well, let’s not gloss over those complications, one of which is whether certain liability or apportionment rules might result in more of the harm in question (though this is not the only adverse outcome we can imagine). An example would be strict liability in a bilateral precaution case—that might not get us what we want in terms of an outcome. That’s why we think about these things, no?
If it is going under the MA unfairness statute, it needs an overall, but not a particularized, harm. In MA, unfairness follows the FTC definition, which requires an overall harm. See the FTC’s policy statement on unfairness, written by the Reagan admin.
No, it’s not at all hard to say, actus, you just refuse to do so for some bizarre reason.
Read the scenario given again—“So I’ve spent my youth eating nothing but junk food of all kinds and now eating nothing but junk food, and drinking 3-4 nights a week. Oh yeah, I never exercise. I’m obese and have health problems that will no doubt lead to my untimely demise and/or pain and suffering.”—it’s shiningly clear where the responsibility lies.
The person at fault is the person who has eaten nothing but junk good, never excercised, etc. They made the choices, they took the actions—and did not make the countering choices or take the countering actions. No one forced them to overeat or sit on the couch all day; they made those choices themself.
Yeah, it’s a hell of a lot easier—and for many people more comfortable—to say all that is the fault of someone else. And it frequently aligns quite well with the political ends of certain activist groups to do so. But it’s complete intellectual and moral crap.
Damn. Of course I’d not even catch a mis-spelling until after I hit post—“junk good” should be “junk food”.
I don’t see why ‘forcing’ has anything to do with it. Liability doesn’t really work that way. I’ve always thought the best analogy for the junk food type suits is to faulty products and labelling: If you use these things as advertised you’ll get hurt. But I’ve never really looked into the issue much.
The causation issue in your case isn’t so simple, there’s advertising, marketing etc… Who’s to say your diet would be different if you weren’t marketed to in a different way. For fault, there could a faultless liability regime applied, so that’s not so simple either.
di bi de thats all folks. Can’t answer the question because on one hand he knows he’ll look stupid if he says its the fault of basically the entire world (all junk food manufactures, fast food restauraunts, regular restaurants hell you could make a case against the entertainment industry because without them I might get more excersize, automobile manufacters, on and on) but can’t say its my fault because that would undermine his entire collectivist notion of the abdication of personal responsibility.
Get your law books out, make a thousand arguments about the legality but in the end if we cant be held responsible for our own actions then we cant really be free.
Advertising makes no difference to diet; it’s your own choice what you pick up in your hands, put in your mouth, and swallow.
I’ve never heard anyone say they ate too much and excercised too little because of advertising. Habit, stress relief and seeking comfort are the most frequent explanations for overeating; “I saw it on television” has never come up.
At least we know where you stand on the issue of liberty and free will.
Nice. You’ve always thought about, and are willing to pontificate about, something you’ve never really looked into much. I think we’ve all figured that out already.
Well, if peope are able to make their own choices, then they’re not perfectable, right? And that’s what the left’s all about—getting in the way of people making their own choices, so everything’s perfect.
Plus, actus, maybe if and when you finish law school you will understand that comparing the marketing and sale of Cheerios to the marketing and sale of defective products is absurd. Products liability law is premised on the claim that a particular product is defective, i.e. unreasonably dangerous, when used as intended by the manufacturer. Eating a bowl of Cheerios is not unreasonably dangerous. Eating ten a day may be, but that would constitute a misuse of the product, which is a defense to such claims.
And Big E’s hypothetical, which you dodged, actually embraces “how liability really works.” The comparative fault of the plaintiff (through the individual choices he makes) can reduce or even bar his recovery against a defendant. So the fact that he was not “forced” to gorge himself day after day with sugary foods, but chose to do so, means the responsibility for his conditions rests at his feet.
That’s why we have faultless schemes of liability, to avoid these problems, and simply look at reducing causes of harm.
If advertising doesn’t change diets, why do food companies advertise?
Me and madison avenue.
Sure, i’ve had the thought for a while now, but never worked it out into a proper regime.
Sure, and my reasoning would go that if I eat as much mcdonalds as they intend me to eat, I will be harmed. Doesn’t work in the Cheerios case, as you’ve shown. Like I said, I haven’t thought it much through, or really tried to fit other theories to it.
Spurlock/actus, how much does McDonald’s intend for you to eat? And why is it that you don’t?
Indeed. I would think that allowing a contributory negligence defense, and the availability of an argument that the parents are a superceding cause, would resolve most of these cases in a way that most would find equitable. That appears to be what angler is suggesting above.
before you know it, we’ll be assigning blame…and then damage$$$$!!!
That’s what we’d have to resolve under the theory. We’d look at their adverts and corporate communications to see what the intended uses are.
It doesn’t taste good. Being inside McD’s makes me dizzy.
Not exactly, Josh. I point out that the concept of comparative fault emphasizes the importance of personal responsibility in the law that most of us recognize as pure common sense, and which actus’ understanding of the way liability works ignores.
Personally, I don’t think these junk food cases should even get to the stage of an apportionment of fault. They are, to me, baseless on their face. Steak knifes, when misused, can cut you. Irons, when mishandled, can burn you. Junk food, when consumed hand-over-fist, can make you fat. These are facts, not causes of action.
Mickey D’s might have a causable action against acthole. He is actively discriminating against their products.
I’m not ignoring it. I’m saying there are faultless regimes.
I believe that acthole has finally seen the light!! King George has a faultless regime.
There are. But very few, if any, refuse to take into consideration the actions of the plaintiff. Worker’s compensation is perhaps the purist “faultless system,” but it is extraordinarily limited and still takes into account some conduct of the worker. The worker who is injured while on the job is entitled to compensation in the form of medical expenses and lost wages, but not “pain and suffering.” And if the worker was drunk, engaging in “horseplay,” or grossly negligent, his claim is generally barred. A true “faultless system” does not exist. And shouldn’t.
BTW, actus, you’ve responded in a fairly straightforward way to my comments. My earlier shot questioning whether you’d ever graduate from law school was cheap, and more than a little immature. Whether you actually will or won’t get your J.D., I withdraw the remark.
And my quick idea is to look at whether the public is using the product as intended. A different approach, unfairness, looks at aggregate harm and reasonable avoidance. Which doesn’t look at individual consumers, but does look at their choices.
Rush Limbaugh has been predicting Actus’ argument for 10 years now.
Look, what the plaintiffs’ attorneys (and those who defend them) are proposing is system that makes it impossible to escape liability. As several commenters have noted, fast food eaten in moderation does not cause obesity. One would think, then, that a plaintiff’s claims would be barred (or severely limited) by plaintiff’s misuse of the product. Plaintiff’s response, as we’ve seen already, is that the fast food seller is still liable because it fostered and intended the misuse. And what is the proof? Advertising and promotion, and, one supposes, the very desirability/appeal of the product. Unless a business has taken absolutely no steps to promote its product, or produces a product that no one wants, the claim that it fostered the misuse/overindulgence that harmed the plaintiff can always be made.
The terms used may sound like a fault based liability syste (because people still tend to believe that you shouldn’t be liable unless you did something wrong) but the intent is to extend strict liability to an entirely new area.
Of course, none of this bothers you if you have the “Business is Bad and It Has Lots of Money So It Can Afford to Give Some to Dipwads Who Can’t Say No to Supersizing” attitude.
I think what are really economic considerations, here, primarily the least-cost avoider principle, are being (inappropriately) wrapped up in the moral rhetoric of personal responsibility. In my view, the goals of the tort system should be (i) to minimize harm by apportioning the consequences on those actors who are in the best position to prevent the harm and (ii) to insure against inevitable harms by spreading them widely. Thus, I am generally in favor of strict liability with contributory negligence. While this system does not guarantee optimum levels of activity, it is the best system I’ve seen suggested for optimizing the level of care (or personal responsibility, if you prefer) for all parties involved.
The easy answer: McDonald’s wants you to eat as much of their product as you’re willing to pay for.
If you’re willing to pay for an excessive amount of McDonald’s products, you are a moron, and you should have your diet set by someone smarter than you are.
Case closed. Next?
That’s why they don’t advertise. They’re happy with whatever people want.
Josh, I hear where you’re coming from. We just fundamentally disagree. I don’t think that the concept of personal responsibility is “moral rhetoric” – I think it is, and should be the bedrock of our system of civil liability. That’s why I hate this junk food lawsuit idea and no-fault liability. It presumes that legal businesses have a duty, under the law, to produce food products that cannot be over-consumed, while at the same time demoting consumers to idiotic dolts, incapable of exercising the free will to simply by-pass the McDonald’s drive-thru and have a (cheaper) salad instead. And your idea of harm allocation seems too similar to income re-allocation for my tastes.
Perhaps disingenuously, ‘actus’ asks “If advertising doesn’t change diets, why do food companies advertise?”
Primarily to gain market share, of course. McDonald’s is less interested in convincing you to eat a Big Mac instead of a salad than in convincing you to eat a Big Mac instead of a Whopper, or a 3-piece chicken combo from Popeye’s, or a slice of Domino’s pizza. How do I know? Because they are perfectly happy if you eat salad, as long as you buy it from them. Similarly, the makers of Cap’n Crunch are primarily competing with the makers of other cereal brands, plus the makers of Eggo frozen waffles and PopTarts, none of which are particularly bad for you when eaten in moderation, and all of which are very bad for you if you eat too much of them.
To put it another way, I can see how it might be reasonable to sue an entire industry if that industry is (a) marketing their product as a whole and (b) openly competing against distinctly healthier alternatives. The “Beef, It’s What’s for Dinner” and “Pork, the Other White Meat” ads might qualify under (a), but even they don’t seem to be pushing you to eat less healthily. They seem to aim primarily at increasing the market share of beef or pork against chicken, lamb, and seafood. If the beef manufacturers were to start a campaign sneering at vegetarians as ‘not many enough to eat beef’ and encouraging them to throw away their whimpy salads and gorge on steak with plenty of fat around the edges instead, there might be a case that they were intentionally worsening America’s overall health for personal profit. But that’s not how advertising typically works, is it?
Oops, make that “not man enough”.
They don’t advertise to get you to overeat; they advertise to differentiate themselves in a market with many choices. They don’t generally care how much you eat, just that you pick their food over that of their competitors.
There are a lot of restaurants where I work, most are fast food. They advertise to announce their presence and to differentiate their services. Their advertisements reflect the demands of the public. When the public wants lots of food cheap they advertise big fat artery-clogging burgers. When everyone was on low-carb diets, they all advertised low carb fare. If you want restaurants to serve and advertise healthy food, get the public to demand healthy food.
Blaming the restaurant industry for personal decision making with regard to diet when the decisions being made are bad only in conjunction with other bad decisions (lack of excercise, etc.) is nothing more than an attempt by lawyers to get money and by activists to attack personal decisions they don’t like. I don’t know if I’d hate or love to see the reprecussions when the social conservatives get wind of this tactic.
Wow, that is <b>EXACTLY</i> nothing like what I said. I’m impressed.
Creepy lawyers.
You know, we wouldn’t even have to worry about any of these stupid cases based on stupid legal theories if there were no such thing as class action lawsuits. Wanna sue someone? No problem:
GET. A. FUCKING. PLAINTIFF.
Class actions have plaintiffs.
Actus
Ok. So, cite me one food commercial stating that it’s product should be eaten to the exclusion of all else.
IIRC, almost ALL breakfast cereal commercials have a tagline “part of a balanced breakfast” showing ONE bowl of said cereal with a glass of milk and a glass of OJ.
But hey, let’s not actual advertising get in the way of demonizing it.
Good lord. Didn’t ANYONE take at least one “mass communications” class?
Actus
Lord, you have no clue to advertising.
First and foremost it is used to alert potential customers that YOUR BUSINESS EXISTS and they may have an interest in patronizing it.
You move into a new town and the hobby you love to relax the evening hours away is knitting. But does your new town have a yarn shop? More than one? Is one really a craft store with only a corner devoted to yarns and needles or is there one hung to the rafters with imported handdyed yarns from Peru and fine bone needles?
You won’t know without those businesses ADVERTISING their wares… Yellow pages, circulars, billboards, local cable access…
You hate advertising? Well, then, you hate business competition.
I don’t think people are doing that.
Does anyone not know McD’s exists?
I hate our saturation commercial culture.
Good lord, actus
If you don’t like McD’s don’t go there.
Don’t like their ads? Get rid of your tv.
But don’t presume YOUR tastes should be law.
actus –
You are some bizarro type of human, but I am so glad that you, and those elitist like you, are here to dictate what things SHOULD (must?) be like in this hideously infantile population.
I mean, if it were not for superior beings such as yourself, I might actually have to pay some attention to my little boy, or – heaven forbid! – make my own choices in life. I mean, how terrible would it be if I were expected to have any knowledge or awareness of anything going on around me?
Thank God there are people such as yourself who spend their time (or will spend their time) in court fighting so that you and the government can tell me what is right and what is wrong, and even what I am allowed to THINK and how I may act. How liberating to be free of all the detrius of our Constitution.
Let’s see. At $25 a pop for each child each time that he/she sees a cereal advertisement, what do you think the lawyers would get at – say – 33%? Looks to me to be more lucrative than the tobacco shakedown.
Here’s my suggestion. Go to Key West, get in a boat and head south for about 90 miles. When you debark, you will find that you have found Shangra-La.
Me? I think I’ll just stay here with the rest of the iliterate incompetents who form the backbone of this nation.
Bon Vovage!
Leave.
Of course not. But someone above asked me how I would feel if the right targetted advertising for our pop culture. I wouldn’t feel so bad.
I don’t know how the MA unfairness statute works. Its not quite a normal class action.
Hell no. You can’t go after bad guys in court there. Try it
Me too. That’s a huge client base.
Sure, restrict my speech. I don’t mind. I also want to be responsible for the chices everyone else makes.
After all, if I told you to jump off a bridge, you’d do it, wouldn’t you?
actus, head for Brooklyn, and await instructions.
Then stay away from it. I don’t mean to say ‘leave the country’, just ‘leave the commercials’.
I watch almost no TV anymore. On those rare occasions I do, I automatically use the remote to filter out the ads. I just ignore the ads in the Washington Post. Those ads are the price you pay for watching TV and reading the paper. Don’t want to pay the price? Then don’t pay the price.
I think fast food is the chosen target for litigation because the progressives hate it and its got enough money to appeal to the lawyers. My mother hates all-you-can-eat restaurants because she blames them for obesity, and she may have a better point than blaming it on fast food. But the mom-and-pop all you can eat joints don’t have the pockets of McDonalds or KFC.
Argument from emotion is rather uncompelling.
Reasoning that relies on telepathy, isn’t. I’d guess that McDonald’s doesn’t give a rat’s ass how much you eat so much as how much you buy, and whether you buy from them vs the other guy.
Or, you could try and build some sort of regulatory structure on the presumption of malice. But that would be stupid.
TW: no answer required.
The reality is, actus just hates the thought of other people making decisisions he thinks are wrong. He’s said as much before, to the point of saying that it’s the goal of modern liberalism to prevent people from making certain decisions.
The choice to advertise is that of the companies. Most of it looks like pollution to me.
I do. I read the web with adblock on. Commercialness in our culture isn’t just ads on TV though.
I don’t think there’s malice involved.
Geez, actus, what kind of lungs do you have, bro?
You suck the average IQ of every debate right through the floor. Yes, No, Non sequitar, non sequitar, yes, no, non sequitar, rinse, repeat.
TW: Old…this routine is very old…
“Commercialness”?
At this point, most anyone desiring continued discussion might advance what they do think is involved.
Guess that clears that up. Note to self: next time, reexamine premises one more time before posting.
We are all actus.
Yeah, I meant the non-inflatable kind.
actus has a point about causation and liability – tort law as recognized such ideas for decades in cases were plaintiffs can’t point to a particular defendent but nevertheless suffered harm from some identifiable group of businesses (the asbestoes cases come to mind).
Where the lawsuit fails is in its implications. TV commercials have a big pull on an audience, especially to children. But the suit’s whole theory rests on the idea that all parents are weak-willed wimps who can’t say NO to their children’s TV-inspired demands. Many are, but that’s a societal problem that the law can’t solve.
Judges are going to be loathe to regulate advertising beyond the current FTC system and the old traditional torts of false advertising. Allowing for such lawsuits makes for a paternalistic society where judges gently (and sometimes not-so-gently) “protect” the apparently gullible, credulous public from themselves, who apparently must be reminded, constantly, that fast food is bad if you eat it too much.
So, long story short, actus has a point, but it doesn’t stand up to the potential parade of horribles that could open up.
It’s not as fun as insulting him pointlessly though:
Yeah, all you libs can just all GO BACK TO RUSSIA.
Ah HA!
As I theorized above and in other posts, this is more about McDonalds (and fast food in general) as symbols of American culture than McDonalds (and other fast food chains) as corporations. There are lots of other groups that could be targeted as symbols of that disgraceful low-class American culture.
You think American culture is too commercial. I actually agree with you, to a point. But I am unwilling to force American culture to change the way I want it when it comes to personal decision making. This isn’t even a legislative attempt to change the culture, its an attempt to use jurisdiction shopping and trial lawyer antics to push an agenda.