The consumer regulatory agency of Sao Paulo, Brazil, has reportedly fined McDonald’s US $1.6 million for allegedly marketing to children. Procon SP has claimed that franchisee Arcos Dorados Holdings Inc. violated the state’s consumer code by using children’s characters and toys to promote Happy Meals®. “This is not an isolated case,” a Procon SP lawyer was quoting as saying. “There’s no need to appeal as they do to children without the maturity or the rationality to enter the market as consumers.” In 2011, the Brazilian Consumer Defense Foundation fined the fast-food corporation US$1.8 million after a nonprofit organization complained that Happy Meal® incentives encouraged “unhealthy eating habits” among children. A McDonald’s spokesperson has since told media sources that the company plans to appeal the latest ruling. Additional details about the Consumer Defense Foundation matter appear in Issue 420 of this Update. See Law360 and Reuters, April 23, 2013.
Tag Archives restaurant
According to a news source, a Michigan state court has approved a settlement of claims that a McDonald’s franchisee falsely advertised some of its chicken products as halal, or prepared in accordance with Muslim dietary restrictions. Ahmed v. Finley’s Mgmt. Co., No. 11-014559-CZ (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne Cty., settlement approved April 17, 2013). The settlement was approved despite objections that the $700,000 settlement fund would be unfairly distributed, for the most part, to two charities without compensating those harmed by the purported fraud. Additional information about the litigation appears in issues 468, 471, 473, and 475 of this Update. The attorney who was a member of the class, posted objections to the settlement on his Facebook® page and successfully defeated a gag order imposed by the court has reportedly indicated that he does not plan to appeal after plaintiffs’ counsel assured him that some of their $233,000 in fees would…
A divided Illinois appeals court has determined that Jimmy John’s Enterprises and one of its franchisees must continue to defend four of seven claims in a personal injury suit arising from a motor vehicle accident involving one of its delivery drivers. Reynolds v. Jimmy John’s Enters., LLC, No. 4-12-139 (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., decided April 2, 2013). The plaintiff, who was riding a motorcycle when the accident occurred and purportedly sustained permanently disabling injuries, alleged that the driver was negligently supervised and trained and thus made an illegal turn into his path in an effort to comply with the food company’s promise of “freaky fast” food delivery, that is, that “deliveries will be made within 15 minutes of receiving the sandwich order.” Finding that the defendants did not properly bring their motion to dismiss under the state’s procedural rules, the court majority found that the trial court erred in…
Fast Food Forward has apparently coordinated its second strike in six months as part of its long-term effort to unionize fast-food employees in New York City. According to media sources, hundreds of workers employed by approximately 65 fast-food restaurants throughout New York City walked off the job on April 4, 2013, to show support for Fast Food Forward’s latest campaign, which seeks to increase worker wages to $15 per hour. The effort has apparently drawn public support from UnitedNY.org, the Black Institute and the Service Employees International Union, among other organizations. “What happened in November was a very big thing in terms of seeing whether workers were ready and able to go out and strike and take risks in a way that has not happened in the fast-food industry before,” said New York Communities for Change Executive Director Jonathan Westin of Fast Food Forward’s previous strike. “A lot of people…
“Nearly all of the meal possibilities offered to kids at America’s top chain restaurants are of poor nutritional quality,” according to a new report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). “One out of every three American children is overweight or obese, but it’s as if the chain restaurant industry didn’t get the memo,” said CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo Wootan. “Most chains seem stuck in a time warp, serving up the same old meals based on chicken nuggets, burgers, macaroni and cheese, fries, and soda.” The report, “Kids’ Meals: Obesity on the Menu,” claims that 97 percent of the nearly 3,500 meal possibilities analyzed failed to meet CSPI nutritional criteria for 4- to 8-year-olds, while 91 percent failed to meet National Restaurant Association (NRA) guidelines for its Kids LiveWell program. CSPI recommends that kids’ meals “must not exceed 430 calories, more than 35 percent of calories…
According to a news source, a Michigan judge has lifted a gag order imposed on an attorney who posted information on his Facebook page critical of a proposed settlement of claims that a McDonald’s Corp. franchisee sold as halal certain chicken products without complying with Islamic standards; the court has also granted his request to reopen the class period thus extending the time for class members to object, intervene or opt out. Ahmed v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 11-014559 (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne Cty., order entered March 12, 2013). Additional information about the case and attorney Majed Moughni’s claims of unlawful prior restraint appears in issues 468, 471 and 473 of this Update. In her supplemental notice, Judge Kathleen Macdonald notes, “[a]s you probably know, there was a great deal of attention given to this proposed settlement from the news media (newspapers, television, radio and internet sources) and in social media. For…
The Dearborn, Michigan-based attorney who was ordered to remove statements from his Facebook® page opposing a proposed class-action settlement in a case raising allegations that a McDonald’s Corp. franchisee purported to sell halal chicken when some of the products were not prepared according to Islamic law has filed a motion to vacate the order and to extend the period for filing objections or opting-out. Ahmed v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 11-014559 (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne Cty., motion filed February 22, 2013). Represented by advocacy group Public Citizen, Majed Moughni claims that the court’s order “was a prior restraint forbidden by the First Amendment.” Additional information about the proposed settlement and Moughni’s criticism of it appear in issues 468 and 471 of this Update. According to the brief accompanying the motion, Moughni, his wife and children have eaten at McDonald’s and are thus members of the class. The brief further contends, “Giving Moughni only…
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the grant of class certification for some 1,600 Domino’s Pizza delivery drivers in Minnesota, finding that their claims lacked commonality. Luiken v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. 12-1216 (8th Cir., decided February 4, 2013). The drivers claimed that Domino’s improperly withheld from them a fixed delivery charge imposed on customer orders. They contended that the charge was in the nature of a surcharge or gratuity under Minnesota law and, as such, must be paid to them. According to the court, liability was based on the objective, reasonable person standard, and what is objectively reasonable from the perspective of the customer “depends on the nature and context of the parties’ bargain.” Because some customers were told by drivers that Domino’s retained the charge and was not part of their tip and because the fixed charge was sometimes within the normal range for a tip,…
A Michigan court has reportedly entered an order specifying what will appear on the Facebook® page of the attorney who filed a complaint seeking to set aside a settlement resolving claims that a McDonald’s Corp. franchisee purported to sell halal chicken when some of the products were not prepared according to Islamic law. Additional details about the settlement appear in Issue 468 of this Update. The court ordered Dearborn-based attorney Majed Moughi to remove any criticism of the proposed settlement from the site, which is apparently popular as a source of news in the Muslim community—drawing 20,000 views each month, prominently post the settlement agreement itself, provide the names of anyone who “liked” or supported the original post, and refrain from discussing the settlement with anyone who might be affected or the media. According to a news source, the Facebook® page has effectively become static because any new posts or…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling dismissing the emotional distress claims filed by a deputy sheriff who alleged that Burger King employees served him a hamburger tainted with spit, in light of a Washington Supreme Court ruling that the state’s product liability law would allow relief for emotional distress damages in the absence of physical injury. Bylsma v. Burger King Corp., No. 10-36125 (9th Cir., decided February 12, 2013). Details about the state high court ruling in response to the question certified to it by the Ninth Circuit appear in Issue 470 of this Update. The Ninth Circuit remanded the matter to the district court with instructions to give the deputy sheriff the opportunity to amend his complaint to conform to Washington law and then to allow the lower court to determine whether he has pleaded “the necessary facts to support his emotional damages…
