5 ms·

Fed-up consumers are going after food companies for misleading claims

46 points by isaacfrond 3y ago

anon291 3y ago
I'm sorry... Suing a company because their drink does not give you wings is just... Stupid
- imchillyb 3y ago
  > Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have no passion fruit. That's what two consumers who have sued Starbucks for consumer protection law violations say about the coffee giant's fruit-based drinks. Where is the wing quote? This suit is about false advertisement. Those sentences are the first two of the article. Way to show you didn’t read the article bro.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    > Where is the wing quote? ... Way to show you didn’t read the article bro. Pot, meet kettle: > In 2014, Red Bull announced it would pay more than $13 million to settle a lawsuit brought by buyers who said the energy drink didn't — as the marketing materials promised — "give you wings."
    - jasonlotito 3y ago
      The "give you wings" wasn't literal, which is what the GP was complaining about. FTA linked in the article: "Red Bull does not, it turns out, give you wings — even in the figurative sense. Red Bull says in its marketing that the drink can improve concentration and reaction speeds, but the plaintiff in the case said these claims were false and lacked scientific support. While the suit did not allege that plaintiffs were disappointed that they didn't suddenly sprout wings, it does say that Red Bull relies a lot on terms like "wings" and "boost" to give consumers the impression that the drink gives people some sort of physical lift or enhancement."
      - lolinder 3y ago
        I realize that, but "way to show you didn't read the article bro" is condescending and dumb even if they were correct, doubly so when the article clearly says it. I agree that in the context of the linked article OP is wrong, and several other people already pointed out the quote you included. I'm responding to the quick and vapid dismissal that shows that imchillyb couldn't be bothered to do a search for "wings" before making fun of OP.
  - pumpkindaughter 3y ago
    Eek, you should go back and read the article...
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    I assume they read this overly literally: > In 2014, Red Bull announced it would pay more than $13 million to settle a lawsuit brought by buyers who said the energy drink didn't — as the marketing materials promised — "give you wings." If you go to the source, obviously, the concern was not that it did not literally cause you to grow wings.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  From the linked article on that suit >Red Bull says in its marketing that the drink can improve concentration and reaction speeds, but the plaintiff in the case said these claims were false and lacked scientific support. While the suit did not allege that plaintiffs were disappointed that they didn't suddenly sprout wings, it does say that Red Bull relies a lot on terms like "wings" and "boost" to give consumers the impression that the drink gives people some sort of physical lift or enhancement.
  - donatj 3y ago
    Isn’t caffeine, which Red Bull contains in spades, scientifically shown to do all those things?
    - Projectiboga 3y ago
      Caffeine's "stimulation" is somewhat of an illusion, it only makes you feel stimulated if you're dependent and it only gets you to where you'd be if you didn't use at all. https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2012/08/21/caffeine-the-silent-killer-of-emotional-intelligence/?sh=7455c11c118c https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2012/08/21/caff... Another important issue is that it will only stave off sleep with sugar.
      - hinkley 3y ago
        Only for neurotypical people. For other populations the effect is real, I don’t know about clinical diagnostic tests but layman identifications commonly use “self-medicating with stimulants” as a red flag for suggesting someone seek a professional opinion. So “can improve concentration”? Yes. Clinically proven. “Can improve [anyone’s] concentration”? Well you’re right that’s not true. But that’s relatively recent settled science, in part because there are plenty of anecdotes going back to Coca Cola being the “Thinking man’s drink” with coca leaves in it. Cocaine makes some people more focused. As does amphetamine, and methylphenidate. But we’ve fucked the words “can” and “may” in legal terms. There is no accident that RFCs use MUST and WILL for mandatory behaviors, or that they’re in all caps.
      - 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mdekkers 3y ago
  > Suing a company because their drink does not give you wings is just... Stupid Redbull has to pay 13 million dollars, so possibly not stupid. Anyway, TFA is about “Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have no passion fruit.” So not entirely without merit, also according to a judge.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  True... But it looks like that version of the lawsuit story is itself a highly-misleading claim: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/red-bulls-wings/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/red-bulls-wings/ https://www.businessinsider.com/red-bull-settles-false-advertising-lawsuit-for-13-million-2014-10?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/red-bull-settles-false-adver...
- II2II 3y ago
  Yes, that one sounds frivolous since it is unreasonable for the consumer to expect such an outcome (at least in a literal sense). On the other hand, placing a common fruit in a product's name without making it equally clear that it is flavoring is misleading. At least in a food services type environment. While people can check the list of ingredients on the packaging in a grocery store, they would have to jump through hoops to get similar information when ordering food in a restaurant.
- imchillyb 3y ago
  > In 2014, Red Bull announced it would pay more than $13 million to settle a lawsuit brought by buyers who said the energy drink didn't — as the marketing materials promised — "give you wings." Rather than face federal judicial action, redbull paid out $13 million to settle. If it’s stupid and it works, it’s not stupid.
- acheron 3y ago
  This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my lawsuit against the film The Neverending Story.
- detritus 3y ago
  oh my gosh, i thought you were joking!
lasermike026 3y ago
I have a better idea, don't buy their crap.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  1. Find a misleading product claim 2. Buy ONE of the product so you have standing for a case 3. Bring million dollar lawsuit against company 4. Profit
- ip26 3y ago
  After many years of carefully reading labels to avoid buying the crap, I do grow tired of the constant deception.
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  How am I supposed to know it's crap when all of the information that they provide about the product says that it isn't?
ncr100 3y ago
This suggests a social trend of pushing back against misleading marketing. Is there evidence of that behind this article's conjecture? Is (American) society changing? (Is this another twist of the "Where's the beef?" moment?)
- pumpkindaughter 3y ago
  I was wondering the same. Maybe there is just an uptick in legal firms taking interest in bringing suits because it has proven to be a viable business? The article points out these firms exist, but "increase in one form of lawyering over the last decade" isn't nearly as sexy as "Fed-up consumers are increasingly going after x"
- donatj 3y ago
  I suspect it’s less a general social trend and more a cohort of litigious profiteers looking to make a quick buck.
  - delecti 3y ago
    I'm happy having thirsty lawyers act as part of society's enforcement against bad corporate behavior. It'd be better if the government did it first, but I'll take what I can get.
    - vladvasiliu 3y ago
      This. I'm against profiteering as much as the next guy, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. If they can curb these dubious practices, good for them.
  - rst4455 3y ago
    It's the sum of both - your textbook cohort of litigious profiteers, now with the perfect social trend excuse so they can redouble their efforts and mask the profiteering as social justice. Expect to see much more of this going forward.
  - LiquidSky 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
user3939382 3y ago
The scam here is that these same food companies have captured the FDA so they can claim they're following the law or doing what is "industry standard" while they're creating the laws. That's why we have all this deceptive packaging, serving sizes that make no sense, etc.
- BytesAndGears 3y ago
  Say what you will about European regulations, but as an American who moved to Europe, I was absolutely floored when I bought a cheap bottle of sparkling mint-flavored water from the grocery store, and the ingredients were exactly: * sparkling mineral water * mint extract I don’t know if a single brand exists in the US that uses actual ingredients in flavored water, I’ve always just seen the vague “natural flavor”. But here it was in the random budget store brand
  - idopmstuff 3y ago
    This is not difficult to find at all in the US. I have tried several sparking waters that use actual ingredients - I don't recall all of them, but Spindrift is definitely one: https://drinkspindrift.com/pages/whats-inside https://drinkspindrift.com/pages/whats-inside. Have you Googled at all to try and find one of these brands? There are no regulations necessary for this - thanks to capitalism, if people want real flavoring in their sparkling water, companies will make it. Regulation is about preventing companies from doing bad things, not about getting them to make good products.
  - vladvasiliu 3y ago
    There are plenty of beverages here in Europe that only state "flavors". Here's one in France: https://www.badoit.fr/bulles-et-the https://www.badoit.fr/bulles-et-the It does say "natural white peach flavor", but also "natural flavors". This is supposedly a tea and peach flavored drink. It spells out "peach" and "black tea infusion", but then there's also some other mystery flavor.
rob74 3y ago
> Barilla pasta isn't made in Italy Well, I sure hope that Barilla pasta sold in the US isn't made in Italy! Why would it be? Ok, maybe shipping wine and other luxury products halfway around the globe makes some sense, but I'm confident pasta can be manufactured to the same quality standards in most of the developed world. It's already bad enough that a brand called Kerrygold is actually shipping butter from Ireland all over Europe just so they can declare it as "Irish butter", or that French or Italian mineral water is being shipped all over the world...
- 6510 3y ago
  Apparently the slogan was: “Italy’s #1 brand of pasta.”
  - soco 3y ago
    And it still is, isn't it. However, nowhere does it imply that the pasta you have on your table is produced in Italy. I fully agree that we must push back on lies and deceit, but this example isn't one of them.
  - rob74 3y ago
    ...and that's 100% true - it's an Italian company, and it's the market leader in Italy. And it's using the same recipes to make pasta in other countries, too. Don't see anything wrong, neither with the slogan, nor with the approach...
    - thefurdrake 3y ago
      Except that the consumer isn't actually getting the product that made the brand #1 in Italy, are they? They're getting a differently-manufactured product with the same facade, but we both know the implication is that you're receiving the same product that has produced the property about which the company is bragging. It's strictly true, but it's also misleading.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
    As an italian, I wouldn't recommend barilla. I like Garofalo a lot more. But I never did a proper comparison, so this is subjective and speculative.
zlurker 3y ago
It's a bit frustrating reading this article, There's clearly two different problems going on here. Claiming your filling is 100% tuna or that your drink is made with aged vanilla, when both are completely untrue are just outright lies to deceive people. Companies doing this should legally be required to change their ways. On the other hand, redbull not literally giving you wings is obvious. Only a child would literally believe this. There's a stark contrast between this and expecting açai in a "strawberry açai" drink.
- jahnu 3y ago
  Yeah somewhat like the “moron in a hurry” standard. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  To be fair, the red bull one is the only real outlier here, and it's only one sentence in the article. And the actual lawsuit wasn't about getting actual wings anyway.
  - sparrowInHand 3y ago
    Its a long rich history from PRopaganda against consumers.. the mc donalds coffee lady comes two mind, were mc donalds tried to ditch the medical costs for 3rd degree burns and put her up as a ambulance chaser.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  > On the other hand, redbull not literally giving you wings is obvious. Only a child would literally believe this That was _not_ the claim made in the relevant lawsuit; see the linked article.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    To be fair to OP, in the context of the US legal system it wouldn't be unheard of for such an absurd lawsuit to be filed and settled, and the article we're discussing doesn't clarify what was actually meant. See Pepsi and the Harrier jet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
numbsafari 3y ago
Meanwhile, country of origin labeling has become less and less transparent over time. There is a war against our ability to make informed choices about what we put in our bodies, and we are largely just letting it happen.
- 7thaccount 3y ago
  The Confusopoly of the mobile phone and car dealership world is expanding. Companies don't want you to be able to make informed choices. It's hilarious that something that came out of Dilbert became a term in economics textbooks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusopoly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusopoly
denton-scratch 3y ago
This is why I really hope the UK doesn't sign a comprehensive trade agreement with the USA encompassing food. UK labelling regulations are currently "alright". They're grandfathered from the pre-Brexit EU regulations, although I'd prefer more-stringent rules. But please, please, don't import US labelling rules.
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  That ship is going to sail, immediately right after Brexit went through, there were whole delegations of US businessmen and lobbyists pushing the UK government back then to ease the rules on quality of food, so US can export more products. You don't hear any government PR campaigns about keeping traditional food quality, so decisions were and will be made.
flenserboy 3y ago
Then there's the real issue on labeling — if there is only X amount of a counted nutrient in a product, such as sugar, the label can say that there is no sugar in the product. This can significantly affect people who keep close tabs on what they eat, & who rely on honest labeling. Link to recent article detailing this: https://medium.com/@massdatasoft/how-tic-tac-is-misleading-you-dirty-business-scheme-dbde6bfc0092 https://medium.com/@massdatasoft/how-tic-tac-is-misleading-y...
squarefoot 3y ago
If advertising was intended to tell the truth it would be called information.
charles_f 3y ago
> it'd be a stretch to think that consumers would walk into a restaurant and think that the cheeseburger that they're going to get wrapped up in paper and stuck in a bag is going to look exactly like the one they see in the picture Duh, why would I reasonably expect that the thing which is marketed to me corresponds to the thing delivered to me in the end? Nonsense! That would either require restaurants to up their game to match the beautiful stuff they pretend to sell, or to take actual pictures of the crap they serve. Can you imagine? Let's be serious!

46 points by isaacfrond 3y ago

anon291 3y ago

I'm sorry... Suing a company because their drink does not give you wings is just... Stupid

imchillyb 3y ago
> Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have no passion fruit. That's what two consumers who have sued Starbucks for consumer protection law violations say about the coffee giant's fruit-based drinks. Where is the wing quote? This suit is about false advertisement. Those sentences are the first two of the article. Way to show you didn’t read the article bro.
- lolinder 3y ago
  > Where is the wing quote? ... Way to show you didn’t read the article bro. Pot, meet kettle: > In 2014, Red Bull announced it would pay more than $13 million to settle a lawsuit brought by buyers who said the energy drink didn't — as the marketing materials promised — "give you wings."
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    The "give you wings" wasn't literal, which is what the GP was complaining about. FTA linked in the article: "Red Bull does not, it turns out, give you wings — even in the figurative sense. Red Bull says in its marketing that the drink can improve concentration and reaction speeds, but the plaintiff in the case said these claims were false and lacked scientific support. While the suit did not allege that plaintiffs were disappointed that they didn't suddenly sprout wings, it does say that Red Bull relies a lot on terms like "wings" and "boost" to give consumers the impression that the drink gives people some sort of physical lift or enhancement."
    - lolinder 3y ago
      I realize that, but "way to show you didn't read the article bro" is condescending and dumb even if they were correct, doubly so when the article clearly says it. I agree that in the context of the linked article OP is wrong, and several other people already pointed out the quote you included. I'm responding to the quick and vapid dismissal that shows that imchillyb couldn't be bothered to do a search for "wings" before making fun of OP.
- pumpkindaughter 3y ago
  Eek, you should go back and read the article...
- rsynnott 3y ago
  I assume they read this overly literally: > In 2014, Red Bull announced it would pay more than $13 million to settle a lawsuit brought by buyers who said the energy drink didn't — as the marketing materials promised — "give you wings." If you go to the source, obviously, the concern was not that it did not literally cause you to grow wings.
boomboomsubban 3y ago
From the linked article on that suit >Red Bull says in its marketing that the drink can improve concentration and reaction speeds, but the plaintiff in the case said these claims were false and lacked scientific support. While the suit did not allege that plaintiffs were disappointed that they didn't suddenly sprout wings, it does say that Red Bull relies a lot on terms like "wings" and "boost" to give consumers the impression that the drink gives people some sort of physical lift or enhancement.
- donatj 3y ago
  Isn’t caffeine, which Red Bull contains in spades, scientifically shown to do all those things?
  - Projectiboga 3y ago
    Caffeine's "stimulation" is somewhat of an illusion, it only makes you feel stimulated if you're dependent and it only gets you to where you'd be if you didn't use at all. https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2012/08/21/caffeine-the-silent-killer-of-emotional-intelligence/?sh=7455c11c118c https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2012/08/21/caff... Another important issue is that it will only stave off sleep with sugar.
    - hinkley 3y ago
      Only for neurotypical people. For other populations the effect is real, I don’t know about clinical diagnostic tests but layman identifications commonly use “self-medicating with stimulants” as a red flag for suggesting someone seek a professional opinion. So “can improve concentration”? Yes. Clinically proven. “Can improve [anyone’s] concentration”? Well you’re right that’s not true. But that’s relatively recent settled science, in part because there are plenty of anecdotes going back to Coca Cola being the “Thinking man’s drink” with coca leaves in it. Cocaine makes some people more focused. As does amphetamine, and methylphenidate. But we’ve fucked the words “can” and “may” in legal terms. There is no accident that RFCs use MUST and WILL for mandatory behaviors, or that they’re in all caps.
    - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mdekkers 3y ago
> Suing a company because their drink does not give you wings is just... Stupid Redbull has to pay 13 million dollars, so possibly not stupid. Anyway, TFA is about “Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have no passion fruit.” So not entirely without merit, also according to a judge.
bell-cot 3y ago
True... But it looks like that version of the lawsuit story is itself a highly-misleading claim: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/red-bulls-wings/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/red-bulls-wings/ https://www.businessinsider.com/red-bull-settles-false-advertising-lawsuit-for-13-million-2014-10?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/red-bull-settles-false-adver...
II2II 3y ago
Yes, that one sounds frivolous since it is unreasonable for the consumer to expect such an outcome (at least in a literal sense). On the other hand, placing a common fruit in a product's name without making it equally clear that it is flavoring is misleading. At least in a food services type environment. While people can check the list of ingredients on the packaging in a grocery store, they would have to jump through hoops to get similar information when ordering food in a restaurant.
imchillyb 3y ago
> In 2014, Red Bull announced it would pay more than $13 million to settle a lawsuit brought by buyers who said the energy drink didn't — as the marketing materials promised — "give you wings." Rather than face federal judicial action, redbull paid out $13 million to settle. If it’s stupid and it works, it’s not stupid.
acheron 3y ago
This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my lawsuit against the film The Neverending Story.
detritus 3y ago
oh my gosh, i thought you were joking!

lasermike026 3y ago

I have a better idea, don't buy their crap.

candiddevmike 3y ago
1. Find a misleading product claim 2. Buy ONE of the product so you have standing for a case 3. Bring million dollar lawsuit against company 4. Profit
ip26 3y ago
After many years of carefully reading labels to avoid buying the crap, I do grow tired of the constant deception.
TheCoelacanth 3y ago
How am I supposed to know it's crap when all of the information that they provide about the product says that it isn't?

ncr100 3y ago

This suggests a social trend of pushing back against misleading marketing. Is there evidence of that behind this article's conjecture? Is (American) society changing? (Is this another twist of the "Where's the beef?" moment?)

pumpkindaughter 3y ago
I was wondering the same. Maybe there is just an uptick in legal firms taking interest in bringing suits because it has proven to be a viable business? The article points out these firms exist, but "increase in one form of lawyering over the last decade" isn't nearly as sexy as "Fed-up consumers are increasingly going after x"
donatj 3y ago
I suspect it’s less a general social trend and more a cohort of litigious profiteers looking to make a quick buck.
- delecti 3y ago
  I'm happy having thirsty lawyers act as part of society's enforcement against bad corporate behavior. It'd be better if the government did it first, but I'll take what I can get.
  - vladvasiliu 3y ago
    This. I'm against profiteering as much as the next guy, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. If they can curb these dubious practices, good for them.
- rst4455 3y ago
  It's the sum of both - your textbook cohort of litigious profiteers, now with the perfect social trend excuse so they can redouble their efforts and mask the profiteering as social justice. Expect to see much more of this going forward.
- LiquidSky 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

user3939382 3y ago

The scam here is that these same food companies have captured the FDA so they can claim they're following the law or doing what is "industry standard" while they're creating the laws. That's why we have all this deceptive packaging, serving sizes that make no sense, etc.

BytesAndGears 3y ago
Say what you will about European regulations, but as an American who moved to Europe, I was absolutely floored when I bought a cheap bottle of sparkling mint-flavored water from the grocery store, and the ingredients were exactly: * sparkling mineral water * mint extract I don’t know if a single brand exists in the US that uses actual ingredients in flavored water, I’ve always just seen the vague “natural flavor”. But here it was in the random budget store brand
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  This is not difficult to find at all in the US. I have tried several sparking waters that use actual ingredients - I don't recall all of them, but Spindrift is definitely one: https://drinkspindrift.com/pages/whats-inside https://drinkspindrift.com/pages/whats-inside. Have you Googled at all to try and find one of these brands? There are no regulations necessary for this - thanks to capitalism, if people want real flavoring in their sparkling water, companies will make it. Regulation is about preventing companies from doing bad things, not about getting them to make good products.
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  There are plenty of beverages here in Europe that only state "flavors". Here's one in France: https://www.badoit.fr/bulles-et-the https://www.badoit.fr/bulles-et-the It does say "natural white peach flavor", but also "natural flavors". This is supposedly a tea and peach flavored drink. It spells out "peach" and "black tea infusion", but then there's also some other mystery flavor.

rob74 3y ago

> Barilla pasta isn't made in Italy Well, I sure hope that Barilla pasta sold in the US isn't made in Italy! Why would it be? Ok, maybe shipping wine and other luxury products halfway around the globe makes some sense, but I'm confident pasta can be manufactured to the same quality standards in most of the developed world. It's already bad enough that a brand called Kerrygold is actually shipping butter from Ireland all over Europe just so they can declare it as "Irish butter", or that French or Italian mineral water is being shipped all over the world...

6510 3y ago
Apparently the slogan was: “Italy’s #1 brand of pasta.”
- soco 3y ago
  And it still is, isn't it. However, nowhere does it imply that the pasta you have on your table is produced in Italy. I fully agree that we must push back on lies and deceit, but this example isn't one of them.
- rob74 3y ago
  ...and that's 100% true - it's an Italian company, and it's the market leader in Italy. And it's using the same recipes to make pasta in other countries, too. Don't see anything wrong, neither with the slogan, nor with the approach...
  - thefurdrake 3y ago
    Except that the consumer isn't actually getting the product that made the brand #1 in Italy, are they? They're getting a differently-manufactured product with the same facade, but we both know the implication is that you're receiving the same product that has produced the property about which the company is bragging. It's strictly true, but it's also misleading.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
  As an italian, I wouldn't recommend barilla. I like Garofalo a lot more. But I never did a proper comparison, so this is subjective and speculative.

zlurker 3y ago

It's a bit frustrating reading this article, There's clearly two different problems going on here. Claiming your filling is 100% tuna or that your drink is made with aged vanilla, when both are completely untrue are just outright lies to deceive people. Companies doing this should legally be required to change their ways. On the other hand, redbull not literally giving you wings is obvious. Only a child would literally believe this. There's a stark contrast between this and expecting açai in a "strawberry açai" drink.

jahnu 3y ago
Yeah somewhat like the “moron in a hurry” standard. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry
Workaccount2 3y ago
To be fair, the red bull one is the only real outlier here, and it's only one sentence in the article. And the actual lawsuit wasn't about getting actual wings anyway.
- sparrowInHand 3y ago
  Its a long rich history from PRopaganda against consumers.. the mc donalds coffee lady comes two mind, were mc donalds tried to ditch the medical costs for 3rd degree burns and put her up as a ambulance chaser.
rsynnott 3y ago
> On the other hand, redbull not literally giving you wings is obvious. Only a child would literally believe this That was _not_ the claim made in the relevant lawsuit; see the linked article.
- lolinder 3y ago
  To be fair to OP, in the context of the US legal system it wouldn't be unheard of for such an absurd lawsuit to be filed and settled, and the article we're discussing doesn't clarify what was actually meant. See Pepsi and the Harrier jet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

numbsafari 3y ago

Meanwhile, country of origin labeling has become less and less transparent over time. There is a war against our ability to make informed choices about what we put in our bodies, and we are largely just letting it happen.

7thaccount 3y ago
The Confusopoly of the mobile phone and car dealership world is expanding. Companies don't want you to be able to make informed choices. It's hilarious that something that came out of Dilbert became a term in economics textbooks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusopoly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusopoly

denton-scratch 3y ago

This is why I really hope the UK doesn't sign a comprehensive trade agreement with the USA encompassing food. UK labelling regulations are currently "alright". They're grandfathered from the pre-Brexit EU regulations, although I'd prefer more-stringent rules. But please, please, don't import US labelling rules.

saiya-jin 3y ago
That ship is going to sail, immediately right after Brexit went through, there were whole delegations of US businessmen and lobbyists pushing the UK government back then to ease the rules on quality of food, so US can export more products. You don't hear any government PR campaigns about keeping traditional food quality, so decisions were and will be made.

flenserboy 3y ago

Then there's the real issue on labeling — if there is only X amount of a counted nutrient in a product, such as sugar, the label can say that there is no sugar in the product. This can significantly affect people who keep close tabs on what they eat, & who rely on honest labeling. Link to recent article detailing this: https://medium.com/@massdatasoft/how-tic-tac-is-misleading-you-dirty-business-scheme-dbde6bfc0092 https://medium.com/@massdatasoft/how-tic-tac-is-misleading-y...

squarefoot 3y ago

If advertising was intended to tell the truth it would be called information.

charles_f 3y ago

> it'd be a stretch to think that consumers would walk into a restaurant and think that the cheeseburger that they're going to get wrapped up in paper and stuck in a bag is going to look exactly like the one they see in the picture Duh, why would I reasonably expect that the thing which is marketed to me corresponds to the thing delivered to me in the end? Nonsense! That would either require restaurants to up their game to match the beautiful stuff they pretend to sell, or to take actual pictures of the crap they serve. Can you imagine? Let's be serious!