On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 14:29:11 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
> wrote:

>
>"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.
>

There won't be.

But fear not, Chick-fil-A fiends, the zoning changes currently in
effect only affect new construction. Thus far, cities in California,
Missouri and New Jersey have implemented similar bans.
https://www.today.com/food/cities-ba...health-t164732

So go ahead and show us ONE lawsuit. We'll wait, Jenny.

[Theme from "Jeopardy" playing]