3 ms·
>"I thought Pop Tarts would prevent cancer" is silly. This strikes me as... not being in good faith. Clearly you didn’t read the Complaint, only this article
by throwawaycities 5y ago
>"I thought Pop Tarts would prevent cancer" is silly.
This strikes me as... not being in good faith.
Clearly you didn’t read the Complaint, only this article which is written on behalf of the food industry and an obvious attempt to publicly attack both a singled out woman that is part of a class of plaintiffs and the law firm representing the plaintiff. It’s the same reason to this day people talk negatively about a woman suing McDonald’s and winning $1M after being burned by hot coffee, because McDonald’s sought to mock her claims publicly and it is a successful tactic. It’s hardly ever mentioned the McDonald’s in question purposely served coffee significantly hotter than industry standards permit, failed to attach the lid to her coffee resulting in 3rd degree burns to her crotch area requiring skin graphs, and was only required to pay he a single days worth of coffee sales.
Just look at the bs title of the article, “law firm sues…”. Then the very first sentence charges the law firm with being a “litigious law firm.”
What a joke, a law firm isn’t suing Kellogg, a law firm represents plaintiffs in a class action law suit (which is rare because it requires overcoming a legal burden of certifying the class). It’s this class of plaintiffs suing Kellogg not a “litigious law firm.”
The lawsuit, in addition to damages, is seeking the product be properly labeled. While the truth about Kellogg selling shit products to consumers may be obvious to you (and will ironically be one of their defenses), Kellogg’s labels are allegedly below the industry standard of competing toaster pastries that make disclosures of the artificial fillers. So it’s maybe not so ridiculous this woman and class of plaintiffs thought a strawberry pop tart might include the health benefits of…strawberries. After all if they didn’t then pop tart could have easily labeled their product the same way as all the other strawberry toaster pastries. It’s a far cry away from trying to paint a single plaintiff of a class action lawsuit as a wacko that thinks pop tarts prevents cancer, but hey it’s why these anti-plaintiff articles are written by industry, corporations advertise and mislabel products to begin with…it works on people.
- ceejayoz 5y agoThe woman in the McDonalds coffee lawsuit was severely and permanently harmed. The claimed harm in this case is they wouldn't have paid $4 for Pop Tarts if they'd realized they were less healthy. (Yes, I read the complaint.)
- throwawaycities 5y agoWell I only mentioned the McDonald’s case because of the similar public relations attack by the food industry, you are trying to distinguish the damages. If you actually read the complaint then you wouldn’t try comparing the damages resulting from a negligence case and this case for: 1. Violation of the NY consumer statue act; 2. Negligent misrepresentation; 3. Breach of implied merchantability; and 4. Unjust enrichment. Also please cite from the complaint exactly where you got you initial quotation that the plaintiffs “thought pop tarts would prevent cancer.” Or why you would have made that up after reading the complaint?