3 ms·

The law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head yet again.

• bstrand 15y ago
  Only an unintended consequence if you accept the article's premise that a non-trivial number people actually went to McD's and only bought the toy, and those people will continue to go for the toy but buy the happy meal to get it. And feed it to their kid. Seems dubious to me.
  • city41 15y ago
    But McDonald's is still selling happy meals with toys in them in San Francisco. They are just selling them for ten cents more now. So the law is effectively moot.
  • marknutter 15y ago
    It seems that the unintended consequence here is that the Ronald McDonald house is getting more donations than it used to. It not accomplishing the goal the law set out to accomplish certainly wasn't intended, but it wasn't an "unintended consequence" in the traditional sense.
• raganwald 15y ago
  Scofflaws deliberately seeking loopholes are not "unintended consequence." nwnted consequences, perhaps, but not unintended consequences. An unintended consequence of a ban on toys with meals might be something bizzare like a rise in minivan accidents because kids full of caffiene and sugar have nothing to play with in the car and bug their parents while they're driving home from lnch.