On the one hand, I really dislike these kinds of frivolous lawsuits being made by people presumably looking for a payoff, clogging up our courts. On the other hand, it's nice to see companies get...
On the one hand, I really dislike these kinds of frivolous lawsuits being made by people presumably looking for a payoff, clogging up our courts.
On the other hand, it's nice to see companies get their hands burned on the stove when they try to push the boundaries on misleading labeling and advertising. I see a lot of companies promising no fees or free shipping or free that, when really all the costs are built in elsewhere.
That's always going to be the case. In the end, pricing in a market economy is based on dynamic discovery from supply and demand. Free shipping vs not is just rearranging the pricing model, which...
I see a lot of companies promising no fees or free shipping or free that, when really all the costs are built in elsewhere.
That's always going to be the case. In the end, pricing in a market economy is based on dynamic discovery from supply and demand. Free shipping vs not is just rearranging the pricing model, which achieves different price discrimination depending on what companies and consumers want. There's the addition that consumers have a poor psychological reaction to discrete shipping prices.
It feels like using torts to fix this is a poor mechanism. She's claiming $5m? There's no way she suffered that much harm. I don't know anything about it, but the US system allowing people to...
It feels like using torts to fix this is a poor mechanism. She's claiming $5m? There's no way she suffered that much harm. I don't know anything about it, but the US system allowing people to claim vast amounts of money feels broken because it feels like it encourages this kind of lawsuit, even when the claimant is trying to settle for a reasonable amount.
The McDonald's coffee woman tried pretty hard to settle for just her costs (about $20,000), but McDonalds declined to settle, so she sued and was awarded $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. That was reduced to $640,000.
It’s class action. She didn’t suffer those damages, consumers did. The core claims in the very readable document is that the company engaged in unfair trade practices, false advertising and...
It’s class action. She didn’t suffer those damages, consumers did.
The core claims in the very readable document is that the company engaged in unfair trade practices, false advertising and benefited from those due to the product being sold at a premium price.
The suit covers consumers across several states. 5M seems right:
Florida Class: All persons in the State of Florida who purchased the Product during the statutes of limitations for each cause of action alleged; and
Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class: All persons in the States of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, New Mexico, Alaska, Iowa, Tennessee, and Virginia who purchased the Product during the statutes of limitations for each cause of action alleged.
I'm all for holding companies to account, and to higher standards than individuals given the power imbalance, but her choosing this example specifically to make that case seems incredibly odd to...
I'm all for holding companies to account, and to higher standards than individuals given the power imbalance, but her choosing this example specifically to make that case seems incredibly odd to me. The idea that this led to a measurable loss for any consumers seems absurd - it genuinely doesn't strike me as misleading given how similar language is commonly used, and even if it were I can't believe that a 30-90 second difference in timing is enough to alter consumer behaviour in a meaningful way.
The idea is that consumer suffered damages, because they were more willing to pay for a product that advertised itself as such. If you falsely advertise, even by just exaggerating or playing with...
The idea is that consumer suffered damages, because they were more willing to pay for a product that advertised itself as such.
If you falsely advertise, even by just exaggerating or playing with words, then you’re unjustly profiting from the people who would have bought a different product. If a bowl of mnc is usually sold for 8 dollars and you’re selling for 10, and the suit can show that your consumers would have bought the cheaper option instead, then the damage to the consumers is that extra 2 dollars spent.
I make no comments on the actual merits by the way. Not a lawyer.
Oh absolutely, I get the conceptual way that misleading advertising can have a direct cost, but I am commenting on the actual merits of this case! I don't think that a reasonable person would feel...
Oh absolutely, I get the conceptual way that misleading advertising can have a direct cost, but I am commenting on the actual merits of this case!
I don't think that a reasonable person would feel misled if you said "dinner's ready" and then when they got there you followed up with "oh but it just came out of the microwave, let it sit for a minute or two". The way they're using "ready" in this context is totally valid common usage and I see no problem with it.
On the off chance that argument is rejected and it is found to be misleading it'd need to be reworded, but to show damages would additionally require that people bought specifically because 3.5 minutes vs 5 minutes was enough to meaningfully change their purchasing decision, and I simply don't buy that it would have done.
Plaintiffs attorneys are happy you are not on their jury. There are a couple of things going on here. First, this case may be the one in front because it is an example for a broader array issues...
Plaintiffs attorneys are happy you are not on their jury.
There are a couple of things going on here.
First, this case may be the one in front because it is an example for a broader array issues in this area. That may be because it is the easiest to argue about, or at maybe it has the simplest set of facts to decide. It should be fairly simple to establish the amount of time required to make the macaroni and cheese, then the case becomes about the language and the practices and expectations of producers and consumers and other more substantial issues.
Related, there is a public interest at stake beyond any one consumers expectations regarding a box of macaroni and cheese. The public is harmed when a produce breaks the rules, even if that harm is very small from a money point of view. In the end, the only people who will make good money of this are the lawyers (and possibly producers, if the final decision is favorable to them). But the public's harm is real, and deserves attention.
Finally, your opinion is valid, but only one of many. Better for us to argue about it in court than try and decide these issues with rocks and clubs, don't you think?
All very fair, and I hope I didn't give the impression that I was in any way against her right to have her day in court here. I think her case is bad, but she has every right to a fair hearing to...
All very fair, and I hope I didn't give the impression that I was in any way against her right to have her day in court here. I think her case is bad, but she has every right to a fair hearing to determine that, and my off the cuff musing is worth no more than the paper it isn't printed on in that context!
In the vast, vast majority of cases I'd be on the side of the consumer - I entirely agree that corporations need to be kept on a short leash (far shorter than they usually are in reality) and that giving them even a small amount of leeway does a large amount of harm in aggregate. I just honestly believe that the specific harm here is zero and the language is reasonable.
Your post nudged me to introspect a little on why this article bothered me enough to comment, and now that I examine it I think it's probably because there are so many thousands of situations out there where I want to see the corporations brought to justice. I would totally agree that there's real harm caused and real change needed in almost every facet of our interaction with big business: everything from minor daily frustrations and hidden fees to outright dangers to life and limb. So when some of the very limited supply of time, effort, and legal representation is going to something that even I can't bring myself to believe caused a measurable loss to anyone, it feels like an affront to all those more serious cases that are never brought before a judge.
Maybe you're right, maybe it'll serve as a precedent for stricter regulation in the long term - that might be a positive outcome regardless of the merits of the specific example - but I think the likely result at best is just another asterisk on the packaging.
I think there's an angle you haven't considered, though: Statistics, and lazy media. If you're wondering what I mean by that, well, I like seeing the world in numbers sometimes. When a weird...
So when some of the very limited supply of time, effort, and legal representation is going to something that even I can't bring myself to believe caused a measurable loss to anyone, it feels like an affront to all those more serious cases that are never brought before a judge.
I think there's an angle you haven't considered, though: Statistics, and lazy media.
If you're wondering what I mean by that, well, I like seeing the world in numbers sometimes. When a weird scenario occurs, I try to think about "how likely is it to occur?"…
In essence, I agree with your post; but a class action lawsuit is not something you can file in a weekend when you're bored, it takes resources and force of will. So how is it possible that those resources are being used in something so… trivial, on its face? Something that has a higher chance than normal to be laughed out of the door?
Let's flip the question on its head. Let's instead assume that the US justice system is ruthless at preventing banal things from reaching it (because we know that it is, actually). Let's say that 99.9% of such types of class actions lawsuits simply won't be filed.
Well, that's still one in a thousand, right. And that one will be, somebody's more bored than usual, has more money and time to waste than usual, and found some lawyers through connections or sheer luck, etc. Anyway, you can't have a system be 100% efficient, it's impossible, so you measure in how many "nines" you're ok with.
According to brief googling, there are ten thousand class action lawsuits filed each year in the US. In other words, ten of these cases every year will be filed, ranging from utterly devoid of merit to simply "why this instead of the bigger fish?". And that's just not a lot. Bumping into such a case at the courtroom would be more rare than winning $500 on a $10 scratch-off (source: texaslottery.com). It happens, but it's quite rare; there's just a lot of people in texas, and a lot of lawyers in the US.
If you think I'm talking sense, then consider that journalists will gravitate towards the unusual, and away from the banal. That the context of how likely something is, is divorced from a newspiece claiming that it happened.
Unless you're very interested in law, you might come across at most… say, 20-30 articles a year talking about class action lawsuits, if that. So seeing a minimum of "one in twenty" being about something like this, your human intuition/subconscious may tell you, wrongly: "5% of class actions are ridiculous shit like that, thanks for reminding me, Internet". When in fact, you're off by three magnitudes.
I invite you to think about the above and its implications on how your attention span is being monetized for ads across all news media.
On the one hand, I really dislike these kinds of frivolous lawsuits being made by people presumably looking for a payoff, clogging up our courts.
On the other hand, it's nice to see companies get their hands burned on the stove when they try to push the boundaries on misleading labeling and advertising. I see a lot of companies promising no fees or free shipping or free that, when really all the costs are built in elsewhere.
That's always going to be the case. In the end, pricing in a market economy is based on dynamic discovery from supply and demand. Free shipping vs not is just rearranging the pricing model, which achieves different price discrimination depending on what companies and consumers want. There's the addition that consumers have a poor psychological reaction to discrete shipping prices.
Florida Woman vs Macaroni and Cheese. God Bless America!
It feels like using torts to fix this is a poor mechanism. She's claiming $5m? There's no way she suffered that much harm. I don't know anything about it, but the US system allowing people to claim vast amounts of money feels broken because it feels like it encourages this kind of lawsuit, even when the claimant is trying to settle for a reasonable amount.
The McDonald's coffee woman tried pretty hard to settle for just her costs (about $20,000), but McDonalds declined to settle, so she sued and was awarded $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. That was reduced to $640,000.
It’s class action. She didn’t suffer those damages, consumers did.
The core claims in the very readable document is that the company engaged in unfair trade practices, false advertising and benefited from those due to the product being sold at a premium price.
The suit covers consumers across several states. 5M seems right:
Florida Class: All persons in the State of Florida who purchased the Product during the statutes of limitations for each cause of action alleged; and
Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class: All persons in the States of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, New Mexico, Alaska, Iowa, Tennessee, and Virginia who purchased the Product during the statutes of limitations for each cause of action alleged.
I'm all for holding companies to account, and to higher standards than individuals given the power imbalance, but her choosing this example specifically to make that case seems incredibly odd to me. The idea that this led to a measurable loss for any consumers seems absurd - it genuinely doesn't strike me as misleading given how similar language is commonly used, and even if it were I can't believe that a 30-90 second difference in timing is enough to alter consumer behaviour in a meaningful way.
The idea is that consumer suffered damages, because they were more willing to pay for a product that advertised itself as such.
If you falsely advertise, even by just exaggerating or playing with words, then you’re unjustly profiting from the people who would have bought a different product. If a bowl of mnc is usually sold for 8 dollars and you’re selling for 10, and the suit can show that your consumers would have bought the cheaper option instead, then the damage to the consumers is that extra 2 dollars spent.
I make no comments on the actual merits by the way. Not a lawyer.
Oh absolutely, I get the conceptual way that misleading advertising can have a direct cost, but I am commenting on the actual merits of this case!
I don't think that a reasonable person would feel misled if you said "dinner's ready" and then when they got there you followed up with "oh but it just came out of the microwave, let it sit for a minute or two". The way they're using "ready" in this context is totally valid common usage and I see no problem with it.
On the off chance that argument is rejected and it is found to be misleading it'd need to be reworded, but to show damages would additionally require that people bought specifically because 3.5 minutes vs 5 minutes was enough to meaningfully change their purchasing decision, and I simply don't buy that it would have done.
Plaintiffs attorneys are happy you are not on their jury.
There are a couple of things going on here.
First, this case may be the one in front because it is an example for a broader array issues in this area. That may be because it is the easiest to argue about, or at maybe it has the simplest set of facts to decide. It should be fairly simple to establish the amount of time required to make the macaroni and cheese, then the case becomes about the language and the practices and expectations of producers and consumers and other more substantial issues.
Related, there is a public interest at stake beyond any one consumers expectations regarding a box of macaroni and cheese. The public is harmed when a produce breaks the rules, even if that harm is very small from a money point of view. In the end, the only people who will make good money of this are the lawyers (and possibly producers, if the final decision is favorable to them). But the public's harm is real, and deserves attention.
Finally, your opinion is valid, but only one of many. Better for us to argue about it in court than try and decide these issues with rocks and clubs, don't you think?
All very fair, and I hope I didn't give the impression that I was in any way against her right to have her day in court here. I think her case is bad, but she has every right to a fair hearing to determine that, and my off the cuff musing is worth no more than the paper it isn't printed on in that context!
In the vast, vast majority of cases I'd be on the side of the consumer - I entirely agree that corporations need to be kept on a short leash (far shorter than they usually are in reality) and that giving them even a small amount of leeway does a large amount of harm in aggregate. I just honestly believe that the specific harm here is zero and the language is reasonable.
Your post nudged me to introspect a little on why this article bothered me enough to comment, and now that I examine it I think it's probably because there are so many thousands of situations out there where I want to see the corporations brought to justice. I would totally agree that there's real harm caused and real change needed in almost every facet of our interaction with big business: everything from minor daily frustrations and hidden fees to outright dangers to life and limb. So when some of the very limited supply of time, effort, and legal representation is going to something that even I can't bring myself to believe caused a measurable loss to anyone, it feels like an affront to all those more serious cases that are never brought before a judge.
Maybe you're right, maybe it'll serve as a precedent for stricter regulation in the long term - that might be a positive outcome regardless of the merits of the specific example - but I think the likely result at best is just another asterisk on the packaging.
I think there's an angle you haven't considered, though: Statistics, and lazy media.
If you're wondering what I mean by that, well, I like seeing the world in numbers sometimes. When a weird scenario occurs, I try to think about "how likely is it to occur?"…
In essence, I agree with your post; but a class action lawsuit is not something you can file in a weekend when you're bored, it takes resources and force of will. So how is it possible that those resources are being used in something so… trivial, on its face? Something that has a higher chance than normal to be laughed out of the door?
Let's flip the question on its head. Let's instead assume that the US justice system is ruthless at preventing banal things from reaching it (because we know that it is, actually). Let's say that 99.9% of such types of class actions lawsuits simply won't be filed.
Well, that's still one in a thousand, right. And that one will be, somebody's more bored than usual, has more money and time to waste than usual, and found some lawyers through connections or sheer luck, etc. Anyway, you can't have a system be 100% efficient, it's impossible, so you measure in how many "nines" you're ok with.
According to brief googling, there are ten thousand class action lawsuits filed each year in the US. In other words, ten of these cases every year will be filed, ranging from utterly devoid of merit to simply "why this instead of the bigger fish?". And that's just not a lot. Bumping into such a case at the courtroom would be more rare than winning $500 on a $10 scratch-off (source: texaslottery.com). It happens, but it's quite rare; there's just a lot of people in texas, and a lot of lawyers in the US.
If you think I'm talking sense, then consider that journalists will gravitate towards the unusual, and away from the banal. That the context of how likely something is, is divorced from a newspiece claiming that it happened.
Unless you're very interested in law, you might come across at most… say, 20-30 articles a year talking about class action lawsuits, if that. So seeing a minimum of "one in twenty" being about something like this, your human intuition/subconscious may tell you, wrongly: "5% of class actions are ridiculous shit like that, thanks for reminding me, Internet". When in fact, you're off by three magnitudes.
I invite you to think about the above and its implications on how your attention span is being monetized for ads across all news media.