The RAND Corp. has published a study claiming that “most kids’ menu items offered by the nation’s top 200 restaurant chains exceed the calorie counts recommended by nutrition experts,” according to a December 5, 2016, press release. Relying on the recommendations of 15 child nutrition experts—including Public Health Institute Advisor Lynn Silver and Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity Director Marlene Schwartz—the study authors adopted the following benchmarks: (i) a maximum of 300 calories for the main dishes in children’s meals; (ii) 100 calories for a serving of fried potatoes; (iii) 150 calories for soups, appetizers and snacks; and (iv) 150 calories for vegetables and salads that included added sauces, with the entire meal not to exceed 600 calories. The study singles out fried potatoes as the item “that most often exceeded the calorie guidelines.” As the authors conclude, “Given the high frequency of children dining away from home,…
Tag Archives restaurant
Three consumers have filed a lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. alleging the company misrepresents the calorie counts of its food in store menus, boards and advertising. Desmond v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. BC640700 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed November 15, 2016). The complaint asserts that the defendants each relied upon a menu board displaying a photo of a burrito with chorizo and "300 calories" to order what they believed to be a low-calorie option, then realized after eating it that "the burrito couldn't have been just 300 calories." The plaintiffs seek damages and attorney's fees for alleged violations of California's consumer-protection statutes. Issue 624
Heartland Consumer Products, producer of sucralose-based sweetener Splenda®, has filed a lawsuit against Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and its franchisees alleging the restaurant chain misleads its customers into believing it carries Splenda® while providing a different sweetener made in China. Heartland Consumer Prods. v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., No. 16-3045 (S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div., filed November 7, 2016). According to the complaint, Dunkin regularly purchased Splenda® from Heartland until April 2016, when it switched to a different sucralose sweetener. Heartland asserts that Dunkin employees continue to tell customers that the sweetener is Splenda even though the new sweetener is a “Chinese-made, off-brand sucralose.” Heartland further argues that Dunkin appropriated its “Sweet Swaps” program by creating a Dunkin-branded “Smart Swaps” program. The complaint asserts that Heartland received multiple reports of consumer confusion, including one customer who reported that a Dunkin employee said Dunkin had “bought out Splenda.” For allegations of trademark infringement, dilution, false…
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. and its customers who consumed tainted food during outbreaks of E. Coli, Salmonella and norovirus have reportedly reached a settlement agreement. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed except for one class member’s request to receive vouchers for free burritos. One case in the litigation is still pending. See The Denver Post, September 9, 2016. Chipotle was also hit with an unrelated lawsuit in California alleging the company fired an employee for saying that her Latino coworkers received preferential treatment. The plaintiff argues that after a Latina woman was promoted to the district manager position, Latino employees began receiving more favorable day shifts while other employees received night shifts. When the plaintiff complained about the scheduling to a Latino manager, she was allegedly told that “black girls always have attitude.” See CBS Los Angeles, September 13, 2016. Issue 617
Two consumers have filed a lawsuit against Subway Sandwich Shops Inc. and T-Mobile USA Inc. alleging the companies sent unsolicited text messages advertising an offer for a free sandwich without first obtaining written consent from the recipients. Rahmany v. T-Mobile USA Inc., No. 16-1416 (W.D. Wash., filed September 6, 2016). The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs each received an unsolicited text on September 1, 2016, advertising a free 6-inch chicken sandwich from Subway, with a link to download the T-Mobile app for additional details. T-Mobile sent the message with an automatic telephone dialing system “with the consent and encouragement of Subway for the purposes of financial gain in a mutually beneficial relationship between those two companies,” the plaintiffs allege. For alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the plaintiffs seek $500 per negligent violation and $1,500 per knowing or willful violation. Issue 616
A Massachusetts federal court has granted certification to a class of former and current delivery drivers for Domino’s Pizza Inc. who allege that they should have received the delivery charge paid by customers. Mooney v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., No. 14-13723 (D. Mass., order entered September 1, 2016). The plaintiffs also asserted that they should have been paid minimum wage for “inside work” unrelated to deliveries, rather than the lower minimum wage for tipped workers. The court focused on whether the plaintiffs’ claims were common to all members of the class. Domino’s and its franchisee argued the classification of the delivery fee as a service charge—which is to compensate employees for service and to be remitted to the employees under Massachusetts law—or an administrative fee “depends on the circumstances of each customer’s encounter with the delivery fee,” thus precluding commonality. The court disagreed, finding that “the plain language of the statute suggests…
Restaurant chain Tasty Burger has reportedly threatened to file an infringement action against Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. following the announcement of Chipotle’s new burger restaurant concept, Tasty Made. Tasty Burger argues that Tasty Made’s name and logo infringe upon Tasty Burger’s established marks, which have been used in commerce since 2010; in addition to the similar name, both logos feature white writing on a red background, albeit in different typefaces. Tasty Burger sent a cease-and-desist letter to Chipotle on July 19, 2016, but CEO David DuBois told the Chicago Tribune that the company ignored it. DuBois also told the paper he contacted the media about the dispute because he is “sick of getting calls from people asking me if we got absorbed.” In response, Chipotle told the Tribune that “there is sufficient difference between the names and logo marks so as not to cause consumer confusion, and we believe both…
A Florida federal court has dismissed a putative class action against The Wendy’s Co. alleging the company failed to adequately secure its customers’ financial information but granted the plaintiff leave to amend. Torres v. Wendy’s Co., No. 16-0210 (M.D. Fla., order entered July 15, 2016). The court found that while the plaintiff’s financial information had been fraudulently used to complete two transactions, “other district courts have concluded that mere fraudulent charges on debit or credit cards do not rise to the level of actual identity theft sufficient to establish standing.” Further, because the charges were reimbursed by the plaintiff’s credit union, he had “not alleged any monetary harm stemming from the two fraudulent charges.” The plaintiff also argued that he and the putative class had standing because of the threat of future harm because they must monitor for future identity theft. The court distinguished the facts at issue from a similar…
A deaf consumer has filed a lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. and two franchisees alleging the company discriminated against her by refusing to allow her to order from the drive-through window. Cirrincione v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 33-0001 (D.N.J., filed July 13, 2016). At one location, the plaintiff alleges she wrote her order on a piece of paper and handed it to a Taco Bell employee at the drive-through window, and a manager then “berated Plaintiff for utilizing the drive through and for placing her order at the ‘pick-up’ window” because it “interfered with the desired flow of business.” At another location, the plaintiff asserts she again wrote her order and handed it to an employee, then “the note was slipped back through the drive-through window,” the window was shut and the order was not processed, “and no Taco Bell employee communicated with Plaintiff in any way, leaving Plaintiff humiliated,…
A California federal court has granted voluntary dismissal to the plaintiff in a putative class action alleging P.F. Chang’s China Bistro Inc. discriminates against customers with a gluten allergy by adding a surcharge to gluten-free dishes. Phillips v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro Inc., No. 15-0344 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div., order entered June 6, 2016). The order granted dismissal to the plaintiff with prejudice but without prejudice as to the putative class, leaving the possibility that another plaintiff may step into the lead plaintiff role. The court also imposed the defendant’s costs on the plaintiff. Details on the complaint appear in Issue 555 of this Update. Issue 607
