"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> Just makes me shake my head in amazement and despair. Why exercise some
>> personal responsibility and self-control when you can sue somebody
>> instead? I have no illusions about why I'm overweight--If there's
>> something that's bad for me, I'm pretty sure to like it. But nobody
>> ever forced me to go to McDonald's or Jack in the Box etc etc. Even
>> without a specific calorie and fat analysis, I never kidded myself that
>> I was eating healthfood, there. Even more than stopping people from
>> making bad lunch choices which I view as being far too nanny-stateish,
>> I wish people would stop looking on litigation as a form of recreation
>> in this country. It's an expensive form of whining. Eat what you want,
>> but be willing to accept the consequences of doing so.
>>
>
> The issue as I understand it is that Mc Donald's made misleading claims
> about their food, and the advertising that delivered the claims was
> targeted
> to teenagers. They will have to prove this. They have already convinced
> a
> court that the case has enough merit to proceed. I don't see a big issue
> here. It's not like the food industry has never adulterated food or
> engaged
> in false advertising or deceptive practices. When does an industry
> achieve
> a position where they can't be sued and who decides? Is the general
> public
> responsible for ignoring false advertising? Should children know that
> eating at McDonalds is bad for you? I think it will be an interesting
> case.
> Hopefully people won't distort the facts like they always do with the
> McDonald's litigation resulting from burns from insanely hot coffee.
>
>

Good points. Remember, a decision that a suit can procede is not a decision
that the case is "right" - it simply states that the papers were filed
properly and that the case is not blatantly frivolous. Also, in the US this
sort of case is supposed to be decided by a jury of citizens and not by a
judge. Access to the courts, which is an important part of our rights, means
that frivolous and silly suits will be filed. WOuld you rather have the
alternative - a system where access to the courts is restricted by a
judicial elite?



--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.