212
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Wendy’s and McDonald’s have emerged victorious from a lawsuit that accused the fast food chains of false advertising.

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought against the two companies accusing them of selling smaller hamburgers than advertised and alleging the food didn’t look as appetizing in person as pictured on their websites.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 121 points 2 years ago

Only because 'everyone does it'

"US District Judge Hector Gonzalez ruled that Wendy’s and McDonald’s food images “are no different than other companies’ use of visually appealing images to foster positive associations with their products.”

Italics mine

[-] [email protected] 59 points 2 years ago

Ahh yes the rarely used "jump off a bridge reversal" defense. If everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it too? Of course!

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

At the very least I’d start checking for a monster chasing them off the bridge.

[-] [email protected] 41 points 2 years ago

"Systemic problems are OK!"

[-] [email protected] 29 points 2 years ago

Everyone does drugs, can we stop punishing people for it?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

woah woah woah how would we enslave minorities if we decriminalized drugs

be a little more empathetic to slave owners (prisons and by proxy the politicians) please

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

If you replace your underscores with asterisks, emphasis/italics should work as intended.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Not really, that's a minor part of the opinion. The more important part is they tell you how much food you're going to get of what kind and then they give you that food. I don't think anyone would be able to win a case on "my burger didn't look like the burger in the ad" because every burger looks a little different. Lots of things that are the same don't look the same and let's not suddenly pretend we get McDonalds for the appearance. They'd win false advertising if, say, a quarter pounder was only 2 oz.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] [email protected] 44 points 2 years ago

America proves once again that we will allow just about anything if it makes corpos money.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 32 points 2 years ago

The advertising angle is likely what sank their case. Proving the food does not meet a technical specification, like not having a quarter pound of beef in a fully cooked patty, is easier to prove. But advertising has always been hyperbole.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

A very important aspect that I think people overlook is that they use similar/same marketing photos of the food on their menu. That's not advertising, maybe that's what they will argue. If I look at a menu and they have a picture of the food, I'm going to expect I get what I see (within a margin) vs when I see an advertisement I expect it to be a bit hyperbolic.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] [email protected] 28 points 2 years ago

Hurray, they can keep showing us inedible objets d'art in food adverts!

[-] [email protected] 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The law favors corporate giants rather than real people? How surprising. Fuck McDonalds and Wendys

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

I feel a little guilty because while I rarely eat fast food anymore Wendy's is my favorite

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

Now, just to add more shit to that sandwich, remember what you said when you read that the Supreme Court has ruled several times that police officers ONLY duty is to uphold the law, and they have no duty or obligation to protect the citizens they police.

[-] [email protected] 23 points 2 years ago

"Case dismissed"

The judge said through a mouth full of big mac before banging his gavel and taking a completely unrelated briefcase full of money that the defendants just happened leave around.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

That's an amazing visual

[-] [email protected] 21 points 2 years ago

Did anyone really believe the corporate judge would do any differently?

[-] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago

Absolutely not. I remember when this was filled and I thought, "well this will be dismissed soon"

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

Poor guy now has to take care of a new yacht

[-] [email protected] 16 points 2 years ago

"This is so backwards" one would think and then one realizes that all advertising is deception.

The judge tacitly acknowledges this truth.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

I dunno, seems like the judge is explicitly acknowledging it.

[-] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago

Just, uh, stop giving these shitty companies your money and uh, problem solved!

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

Ah yes, if only we did this one easy thing! It so easy!

If it was that easy/simple they would be out of business already. Unfortunately reality doesn't always line up with these "simple" solutions, as evidence by.... reality.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

No. I'm, I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago

The technical term is "puffery", which the FTC defines as "exaggerations reasonably to be expected of a seller as to the degree of quality of his product, the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined."

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

I just recently became aware of that term. Thanks!

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

I'm honestly confused. Didn't they show off before that they use the actual ingredients when doing photoshoots? Like no plastic or anything, just making the burger + good lighting, otherwise it's false advertising?

Of course if you then stick that burger into a tight squished wrapper it won't look the same, compared to serving it on a plate and setting it up nicely.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I think you're right I think some of the complaints was the advertisements show more ingredients in the sandwich so they appear larger than they actually are.

Non food items are allowed in commercials but not for the advertised product. The example I heard was Cheerios can use white glue as the milk in a cereal bowl because Cheerios don't sell milk. I need to look this stuff up more though.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I think one of the things the plaintiff is arguing, which I think is valid, is that the food is not prepared the same way even if the ingredients are the same. The example they use is that the burger patty is browned on the outside but not cooked through, so appears to be a much bigger portion of meat than is actually if the burger. It's similar to the bait and switch scam of putting all the filling at the top, making it appear the sandwich or burrito is filled with that quantity, but then you open it up and it's mostly empty.

I think the argument that "we said the exact weight so it's fine" is BS because few people intuitively understand how much ounces of meat or how many grams a sandwich is, but they can intuitively understand a picture of food.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

they won, we all lost

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

When they’re ALL WRONG they gotta be right right?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
212 points (95.7% liked)

News

30709 readers
3398 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS