“Happy Meals” Lawsuit Hype Could Lead to Food Industry Reforms

Highlighting the California lawsuit that seeks to stop McDonald’s from
marketing “Happy Meals” to children, a March 2011 Inside Counsel article
cautions corporate counsel to pay attention to such litigation, because,
frivolous or not, the case marks a growing national focus on health and
governmental initiatives to impose reforms on the food industry. Additional
information about the case appears in Issue 375 of this Update.

Author and managing editor Ashley Trent quotes Shook, Hardy & Bacon Agribusiness & Food Safety Co-Chair Madeleine McDonough, who questioned whether the lawsuit could be certified as a class. “There are so many individual issues,” she said. “What kind of advertising did [putative class members] actually see? What’s the proof that they actually relied on the advertising? What are the reasons they ate at McDonald’s? What did they eat? What kind of control did the parents exercise?” Other legal experts questioned the strength of the lawsuit’s substantive claims.

The article also discusses a number of regulatory initiatives aimed at youth
marketing by the industry, including stalled interagency efforts at the federal
level and the ban that San Francisco imposed on the sale of fast-food meals
of low nutritional value with toys. Noting that some major industry players
are adopting voluntary nutritional reforms, the article closes with a call by
McDonough for dialogue outside the courtroom to effect change. “Litigation
puts people in such a polarized position that it protracts real advances,”
according to McDonough. “Common ground can be achieved—and perhaps
greater effects in public health and in consumer options—when people sit
down at the same table and work something out.”