A lawsuit trying to stop McDonald’s Corp. from offering toys with Happy Meals must be dismissed because parents can invariably not buy the meals for his or her children, the hamburger giant said in a court filing late Monday.
The lawsuit accuses McDonald’s of unfairly using toys to lure children into its restaurants. The plaintiff, Monet Parham, a Sacramento, California mother of two, charges the company’s advertising violates California consumer protection laws.
The Happy Meal is a huge hit for McDonald’s - making the company one of the world’s largest toy distributors - and spawning me-too offerings for the most part other fast-food chains.
One recent and incredibly successful Happy Meal promotion was a tie-in with the popular DreamWorks Animation film ”Shrek Forever After.” The meals included toy watches fashioned following the movie’s characters Shrek, Donkey, Gingy and Puss in Boots.
McDonald’s utilization of Happy Meal toys also has are categorized as fire from public health officials, parents and lawmakers who are frustrated with rising childhood obesity rates and weak anti-obesity efforts from restaurant operators, which are largely self-regulated.
Parham, who filed suit last December, is represented by the Center for Science within the Public Interest, a nutrition advocacy group.
Within the lawsuit, Parham admits she frequently tells her children “no” when they ask for Happy Meals, McDonald’s said in Monday’s court filing.
“She wasn't misled by any advertising, nor did she depend on any information from McDonald’s,” said the organization.
McDonald’s had the suit gone to live in federal court, but the plaintiff plans to fight to get the case back before a California state judge.
Should Parham’s lawsuit be permitted, it would spawn a number of other problematic legal proceedings, McDonald’s said.
“In short, advertising to children any creation that a young child asks for however the parent does not want to buy would constitute an unfair trade practice,” the organization said.
Stephen Gardner, litigation attorney for that public interest group, said McDonald’s is using a cookie cutter method of dismissing the lawsuit, with one key difference.
“What differs about this motion is the fact that McDonald’s has chosen at fault the victim - stating that it’s all Monet Parham’s fault if she doesn’t force her daughter to ignore the onslaught of McDonald’s marketing messages,” Gardner said.
“McDonald’s makes a lot of money by going around parents direct to kids, and it really wants to continue with that strategy.”
Most food companies have pledged to not advertise straight to children, but it is largely up to the to police its own actions on that front. Industry also has argued that government tries to limit advertising crimp free speech protections.
The U.S. food industry has successfully fended off obesity-related lawsuits for years, including helping proceed state laws that ban obesity-related lawsuits.
The proposed class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is Parham v. McDonald’s Corporation et al, 11-511.
The lawsuit accuses McDonald’s of unfairly using toys to lure children into its restaurants. The plaintiff, Monet Parham, a Sacramento, California mother of two, charges the company’s advertising violates California consumer protection laws.
The Happy Meal is a huge hit for McDonald’s - making the company one of the world’s largest toy distributors - and spawning me-too offerings for the most part other fast-food chains.
One recent and incredibly successful Happy Meal promotion was a tie-in with the popular DreamWorks Animation film ”Shrek Forever After.” The meals included toy watches fashioned following the movie’s characters Shrek, Donkey, Gingy and Puss in Boots.
McDonald’s utilization of Happy Meal toys also has are categorized as fire from public health officials, parents and lawmakers who are frustrated with rising childhood obesity rates and weak anti-obesity efforts from restaurant operators, which are largely self-regulated.
Parham, who filed suit last December, is represented by the Center for Science within the Public Interest, a nutrition advocacy group.
Within the lawsuit, Parham admits she frequently tells her children “no” when they ask for Happy Meals, McDonald’s said in Monday’s court filing.
“She wasn't misled by any advertising, nor did she depend on any information from McDonald’s,” said the organization.
McDonald’s had the suit gone to live in federal court, but the plaintiff plans to fight to get the case back before a California state judge.
Should Parham’s lawsuit be permitted, it would spawn a number of other problematic legal proceedings, McDonald’s said.
“In short, advertising to children any creation that a young child asks for however the parent does not want to buy would constitute an unfair trade practice,” the organization said.
Stephen Gardner, litigation attorney for that public interest group, said McDonald’s is using a cookie cutter method of dismissing the lawsuit, with one key difference.
“What differs about this motion is the fact that McDonald’s has chosen at fault the victim - stating that it’s all Monet Parham’s fault if she doesn’t force her daughter to ignore the onslaught of McDonald’s marketing messages,” Gardner said.
“McDonald’s makes a lot of money by going around parents direct to kids, and it really wants to continue with that strategy.”
Most food companies have pledged to not advertise straight to children, but it is largely up to the to police its own actions on that front. Industry also has argued that government tries to limit advertising crimp free speech protections.
The U.S. food industry has successfully fended off obesity-related lawsuits for years, including helping proceed state laws that ban obesity-related lawsuits.
The proposed class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is Parham v. McDonald’s Corporation et al, 11-511.
0 comments
Post a Comment