"Ubiquitous" > wrote in message
...
> Last May, a New Jersey couple caught a Taco Bell commercial on TV, and
> they
> were excited enough by the chalupa-based combo that were being advertised
> that they drove to the nearest 'Bell to get one. Although the TV spot said
> that the Chalupa Cravings Box was 5 bucks, when Nelson Estrella-Rojas and
> Joann Estrella each ordered one, they were charged $6.06 each, before tax.
> Instead of just shrugging off the $2.18 difference and enjoying a shit-ton
> of
> fast food, they decided to hire an attorney.
>
> According to NJ.com, the couple was "taken aback" by the price of each
> Chalupa Cravings Box, which contained one Chalupa Supreme, one 5-Layer
> burrito, one crunchy taco, an order of cinnamon twists and a medium drink.
> Because the Estrellas sound like loads of fun, they asked to speak to a
> manager, who told them that the commercial in question did say that prices
> may vary.
>
> That answer wasn't good enough, so they hired an attorney who was willing
> to
> type out a complaint alleging that the couple "sustained an ascertainable
> loss" with their slightly more expensive visit to Taco Bell, including
> their
> "wasted time," the gas it took to make the six mile round trip, and that
> crucial $2.18. They have filed a lawsuit against both Taco Bell and Yum!
> Brands, its parent company. (And here's where it's worth noting that it
> costs
> $250--the equivalent of roughly forty-one $6.06 Chalupa Cravings Boxes--to
> file a civil lawsuit in a New Jersey state Superior Court.)
>
> "You can't tell someone you are going to charge them $5 in big bold print
> and
> then take it away with a fine print disclaimer," their attorney, Douglas
> Schwartz, said. "You can't do that. It's against the law."
>
> The lawsuit alleges that Taco Bell has violated the state's Consumer Fraud
> Statute, which requires disclaimers to be printed onscreen "in a type size
> and style that is clear and conspicuous relative to the other type sizes
> and
> styles" used in the rest of the advertisement. In the :30 second
> commercial
> that the Estrellas saw, one called "Librarian," the "prices may vary"
> disclaimer was 1/16 the size of the text that announced the arrival of the
> $5
> Chalupa Cravings Box. The lawsuit also says that the disclaimer was only
> onscreen for three seconds.
>
> "Defendants knew or should have known that the 'Librarian' television
> advertising and other similar advertising would be viewed by members of
> the
> public including the plaintiffs and/or other prospective purchasers," the
> lawsuit states, before adding "Defendants committed conduct likely to
> deceive
> plaintiffs by engaging in acts and/or practices as aforesaid with the
> intent
> to induce plaintiffs and other consumers to purchase its cravings boxes."
>
> "It's a classic bait and switch," Schwartz told NJ.com. "It's consumer
> fraud
> being perpetrated upon not only citizens of New Jersey, but all over the
> country. Taco Bell has reaped huge profits from their false, misleading
> and
> deceptive advertising."
>
> The Bridgewater Courier News reports that, although the lawsuit was
> initially
> filed in Superior Court in Middlesex County, Taco Bell successfully had it
> transferred to federal court, because neither the Taco Bell nor the Yum!
> Brands headquarters are in New Jersey, and because there is the potential
> for
> punitive damages of more than $75,000.
>
> "Taco Bell and its franchisees are proud to provide millions of guests
> with
> delicious, affordable food every day," the company told VICE in a
> statement.
> "Our advertisements are truthful and accurate, and we will defend this
> case
> vigorously."
>
> Regardless of the outcome, it's gonna cost _somebody_ more than 2 bucks
> and a
> handful of change.

And yet there are isiots in this newsgroup who say their won't be lawsuits
for banning drive-throughs.