76.238.81.131 (talk) |
Supervehicle (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
In [[2003]], a ruling by the UK [[Advertising Standards Authority]] determined that the corporation had acted in breach of the codes of practice in describing how its french fries were prepared<ref>[http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/focus/case_studies/McDonalds.htm Article on Fries advertisement at Asa.org]</ref> A McDonald's print ad stated that "after selecting certain potatoes" "we peel them, slice them, fry them and that's it." It showed a picture of a potato in a McDonald's fries box. In fact the product was sliced, pre-fried, sometimes had dextrose added, was then frozen, shipped, and re-fried and then had salt added. |
In [[2003]], a ruling by the UK [[Advertising Standards Authority]] determined that the corporation had acted in breach of the codes of practice in describing how its french fries were prepared<ref>[http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/focus/case_studies/McDonalds.htm Article on Fries advertisement at Asa.org]</ref> A McDonald's print ad stated that "after selecting certain potatoes" "we peel them, slice them, fry them and that's it." It showed a picture of a potato in a McDonald's fries box. In fact the product was sliced, pre-fried, sometimes had dextrose added, was then frozen, shipped, and re-fried and then had salt added. |
||
===Chicken McNugget Rap Commercial=== |
|||
Sometime in the early '90s, a commercial aired showing three Chicken McNuggets rapping with Ronald McDonald in the background (the advertisement can be seen on YouTube (titled as McDonalds Chicken Nugget Rap Commercial)). Soon after the commercial aired, it led to some controversy as the Chicken McNuggets were thought to be black stereotypes. |
|||
Today, most historians have concluded that the advertisement initiated an era of shameless pandering to blacks on the behalf of McDonalds. |
|||
==Health and safety== |
==Health and safety== |
||
Line 107: | Line 113: | ||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9oR2EmU854] controversial Chicken McNuggets advertisement |
|||
*[http://www.mcdonalds.com/ McDonald's] official worldwide website |
*[http://www.mcdonalds.com/ McDonald's] official worldwide website |
||
*[http://www.mcspotlight.org/ McSpotlight], an anti-McDonald's site, which includes extensive coverage of legal cases from an anti-Capitalist viewpoint. Mainly contains older information up to 2005. |
*[http://www.mcspotlight.org/ McSpotlight], an anti-McDonald's site, which includes extensive coverage of legal cases from an anti-Capitalist viewpoint. Mainly contains older information up to 2005. |
Revision as of 21:26, 29 July 2008
Template:Infobox McDonald's McDonald's has been involved in a number of lawsuits and other legal cases in the course of the fast food chain's 68-year history. Many of these have involved trademark issues, but McDonald's has also launched a significant number of defamation suits, including 'the biggest corporate PR disaster in history'[1] .
McDonald's has been criticised for its liberal use of the court system, which its opponents say has been used to silence criticism and stifle competition from other businesses [citation needed]. McDonald's contends it is merely protecting its corporate interests from undue attack.
Defamation
McLibel (UK)
In 1990, McDonald's took environmental campaigners Helen Steel and Dave Morris to court after they distributed leaflets entitled "What's Wrong with McDonald's?" on the streets of London. The high-profile trial, which came to be known as the McLibel Case, lasted seven and a half years, the longest in English legal history.
Though a High Court judge eventually ruled in favour of McDonald's, it was something of a Pyrrhic victory. The extended legal battle was a PR disaster, with every aspect of the company's working practices being scrutinised and the media presenting the case as a David and Goliath battle. Additionally, the damages received were negligible compared to the company's estimated £10 million legal costs because the court ruled in favour of a number of the defendants' claims, including that McDonald's exploited children in its advertising, was anti-trade union and indirectly exploited and caused suffering to animals. McDonald's was awarded £60,000 damages, which was later reduced to £40,000 by the Court of Appeal. Steel and Morris announced they had no intention of ever paying, and the company later confirmed it would not be pursuing the money. Steel and Morris went on to challenge UK libel laws in the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that the lack of access to legal aid and the heavy burden of proof that lay with them, as the defendants' requirement to prove their claims under UK law was a breach of the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression. The court ruled in their favour[2] and the UK Government was forced to introduce legislation to change defamation laws.
Trademark and copyright
Cases brought by McDonald's
McDonald's has also been criticized for its approach to preserving its image and copyrights [citation needed]. It has threatened many foodservice businesses with legal action unless they drop the Mc or Mac from their trading name.
McCoffee (US)
In 1994, McDonald's successfully forced Elizabeth McCaughey of the San Francisco Bay Area to change the trading name of her coffee shop McCoffee, which had operated under that name for 17 years. "This is the moment I surrendered the little 'c' to corporate America," said Elizabeth McCaughey, who had named it as an adaptation of her surname.[3]
Norman McDonalds' Country Drive-Inn (US)
In the mid 1980s, Norman McDonald ran a small "Country Drive-Inn" restaurant in Philpot, Kentucky called simply "McDonald's Hamburgers; Country Drive-Inn", which at the time also had a gas station and convenience store. As a play on the real McDonald's, Norman also included a couple of lit "golden arches". McDonald's the restaurant chain forced Norman to remove the arches and add the full Norman McDonald's name to its sign so customers would not be confused into thinking the restaurant was affiliated with the McDonald's restaurant chain. The restaurant is still open to this day (though it no longer has the gas station) and is located in front of the Daviess County Fairgrounds.
McChina Wok Away (UK)
In 2001, McDonald's lost a nine-year legal action against Frank Yuen, owner of McChina Wok Away, a small chain of Chinese takeaway outlets in London. Justice David Neuberger ruled the McChina name would not cause any confusion among customers and that McDonald's had no right to the prefix Mc[4].
McMunchies (UK)
In 1996, McDonald's forced Scottish sandwich shop owner Mary Blair of Fenny Stratford, Buckinghamshire to drop McMunchies as her trading name. Mrs. Blair did not sell burgers or chips. She said she chose the name because she liked the word munchies and wanted the cafe to have a Scottish feel. The cafe's sign reflected this, featuring a Scottish thistle and a St Andrew's flag. But in a statement to Mrs. Blair's solicitors, McDonald's said if someone used the Mc prefix, even unintentionally, they were using something that does not belong to them[5].
McAllan (Denmark)
In 1996, McDonald's lost a legal battle at the Danish Supreme Court to force Allan Pedersen, a mincemeat sandwich vendor, to drop his shop name McAllan[6]. Pedersen had previously visited Scotland on whiskey-tasting tours. He named his business after his favorite brand of whiskey, MacAllan's, after contacting the distillery to see if they would object. They did not, but McDonald's did. However, the court ruled customers could tell the difference between a one-man vendor and a multi-national chain and ordered McDonald's to pay 40,000 kroner ($6,900) in court costs. The verdict cannot be appealed.
McCurry (Malaysia)
In 2006, McDonald's won a five year legal battle in Malaysia against a small restaurant named "McCurry". The defendant claimed that McCurry stood for Malaysian Chicken Curry, but a High Court judge ruled that the prefix Mc and the use of colors distinctive of the McDonald's brand could confuse and deceive customers[7].
South African trademark law
Apartheid politics had prevented earlier expansion into South Africa, but as the apartheid regime came to an end in the early 1990s, McDonald's decided to expand there. The company had already recognized South Africa as a potentially significant market and had registered its name as a trademark there in 1968.
Under South African law, trademarks cease to be the property of a company if they are not used for a certain amount of time. McDonald's had renewed the 1968 registration several times, but missed a renewal deadline. The registration expired and McDonald’s discovered two fast food restaurants in South Africa were trading under the name MacDonalds. Worse, a businessman had applied to register the McDonald’s name.
Multiple lawsuits were filed. The fast food chain was stunned when the court ruled it had lost the rights to its world-famous name in South Africa. However, the company eventually won on appeal[8].
The real Ronald McDonald (US)
The company waged a 26-year legal action against McDonald's Family Restaurant which was opened by Ronald McDonald in Fairbury, Illinois in 1956.[9]
Cases brought against McDonald's
H.R. Pufnstuf / McDonaldland
In 1973, Sid and Marty Krofft, the creators of H.R. Pufnstuf , successfully sued McDonald's, arguing that the entire McDonaldland premise was essentially a ripoff of their television show. In specific, the Kroffts claimed that the character Mayor McCheese was a direct copy of their character, "H.R. Pufnstuf" (being a mayor himself). McDonald's initially was ordered to pay $50,000. The case was later remanded as to damages, and McDonald's was ordered to pay the Kroffts more than $1 million.
McDonaldland itself, as it was depicted in the commercials, was a magical place where plants, foods, and inanimate objects were living, speaking characters. In addition to being the home to Ronald and the other core characters, McDonaldland boasted "Thick shake volcanoes", anthropomorphized "Apple pie trees", "The Hamburger Patch" (where McDonald's hamburgers grew out of the ground like plants), "Filet-O-Fish Lake", and many other fanciful features based around various McDonald's menu items. In the commercials, the various beings are played by puppets or costumed performers, very similar to the popular H.R. Pufnstuf program.
McDonald's had originally hoped the Kroffts would agree to license their characters for commercial promotions. When they declined, McDonaldland was created, purposely based on the H.R. Pufnstuf show in an attempt to duplicate the appeal.
After the lawsuit, the concept of the "magical place" was all but phased out of the commercials, as were many of the original characters. Those that remained would be Ronald, Grimace, The Hamburglar, and the Fry Kids.
McSleep (Quality Inns International)
In 1988 Quality Inns was planning to open a new chain of economy hotels under the name "McSleep." After McDonald's demanded that Quality Inns not use the name because it infringed, the hotel company filed a suit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that "McSleep" did not infringe. McDonald's counterclaimed, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Eventually, McDonald's prevailed. The court's opinion noted that the prefix "Mc" added to a generic word has acquired secondary meaning, so that in the eyes of the public it means McDonalds, and therefore the name "McSleep" would infringe on McDonald's trademarks. Quality Inns Int'l v. McDonald's Corp. 695 F. Supp. 198 (D. Md. 1988).PDF
Viz top tips (UK)
In 1996, British adult comic Viz accused McDonald's of plagiarising the name and format of its longstanding Top Tips feature, in which readers offer sarcastic tips. McDonald's had created an advertising campaign of the same name, which showcased the Top Tips (and then suggested the money-saving alternative - going to McDonald's). Some of the similarities were almost word-for-word:
- "Save a fortune on laundry bills. Give your dirty shirts to Oxfam. They will wash and iron them, and then you can buy them back for 50p." – Viz Top Tip, published May 1989.
- "Save a fortune on laundry bills. Give your dirty shirts to a second-hand shop. They will wash and iron them, and then you can buy them back for 50p." – McDonalds advert, 1996
The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, which was donated to the charity appeal Comic Relief. However, many Viz readers believed that the comic had given permission for their use, leading to Top Tips submissions such as: "Geordie magazine editors. Continue paying your mortgage and buying expensive train sets ... by simply licensing the Top Tips concept to a multinational burger corporation."
Labor
Coalition of Immokalee workers (US)
In March 2001, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, a group of South Florida farmworkers, began a campaign demanding better wages for the people who pick the tomatoes used by McDonald's and other fast food companies.[10] McDonald's was the second target after the group succeeded against Taco Bell.[11]
McDonald's Corporation has claimed that their SAFE (Socially Accountable Farm Employer) program is equal to or superior to the agreement between the CIW and Taco Bell. SAFE was initially represented, in November 2005, by CBR Public Relations Firm. According to their website, CBR-PR has "in-depth" experience handling "activist response management." SAFE, unlike the Taco Bell agreement, does not include a wage increase, worker participation, worker support or basic buying transparency. The program is run by the Florida Fruit and Beverage Association and the Redlands Christian Migrant Association, a childcare provider with no experience in labor issues. As the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association represents farmers who have an interest in reducing costs, often at the expense of farmworkers, this represents a conflict of interests. Under SAFE, farmworkers themselves continue to be excluded from monitoring the conditions under which they work.[citation needed]
According to the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Human Rights, "By partnering with SAFE and embracing its weak expectations — which don't include even such fundamental labor standards such as the right to overtime pay and freedom of association — McDonald's is setting the bar even lower for its American agricultural producers than it does for its suppliers in communist China."[citation needed]
Strip-Search Suit (US)
Advertising
Fries advertisement (UK)
In 2003, a ruling by the UK Advertising Standards Authority determined that the corporation had acted in breach of the codes of practice in describing how its french fries were prepared[12] A McDonald's print ad stated that "after selecting certain potatoes" "we peel them, slice them, fry them and that's it." It showed a picture of a potato in a McDonald's fries box. In fact the product was sliced, pre-fried, sometimes had dextrose added, was then frozen, shipped, and re-fried and then had salt added.
Chicken McNugget Rap Commercial
Sometime in the early '90s, a commercial aired showing three Chicken McNuggets rapping with Ronald McDonald in the background (the advertisement can be seen on YouTube (titled as McDonalds Chicken Nugget Rap Commercial)). Soon after the commercial aired, it led to some controversy as the Chicken McNuggets were thought to be black stereotypes.
Today, most historians have concluded that the advertisement initiated an era of shameless pandering to blacks on the behalf of McDonalds.
Health and safety
The McDonald's coffee case (US)
In 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, sued McDonald's after she suffered third-degree burns after she spilled hot coffee that she ordered at one of the company's drive-thrus.[13] a.k.a. the "McDonald's coffee case", is a well-known product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.9 million to a woman who burned herself with hot coffee. The trial judge reduced the total award to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The case entered popular understanding as an example of frivolous litigation;[14] ABC News calls the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits."[15] Trial-lawyer groups such as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and other opponents of tort reform sometimes argue that the suit was justified because of the extent of Liebeck's injuries.[16]
See also
External links
- [1] controversial Chicken McNuggets advertisement
- McDonald's official worldwide website
- McSpotlight, an anti-McDonald's site, which includes extensive coverage of legal cases from an anti-Capitalist viewpoint. Mainly contains older information up to 2005.
- McDonald's in the news - an extensive list of links to news articles about McDonald's, including coverage of legal cases, from a website aimed at franchisees of the company.
References
- ^ The infamous McLibel case
- ^ ECHR, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 15/02/2005, application no. 68416/01
- ^ McSpotlight.org article on the McCoffee lawsuit
- ^ McChina UK vs McDonald's USA
- ^ McSpotlight article on the McMunchies lawsuit
- ^ Findlaw.com article on the McAllan lawsuit
- ^ News.com.au article on the McCurry lawsuit
- ^ Gblaw.com article on the South African trademark lawsuits
- ^ Sentienttimes.com article on the 26-year real Ronald McDonald legal action
- ^ Ciw-online.com article on the Coalition of Immokalee workers demands
- ^ Monthlyreview.org article on the Coalition of Immokalee workers
- ^ Article on Fries advertisement at Asa.org
- ^ Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc., No. D-202 CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 18, 1994) details from nmcourts.com
- ^ Mark B. Greenlee, "Kramer v. Java World: Images, Issues, and Idols in the Debate Over Tort Reform," 26 Cap. U.L. Rev. 701
- ^ ABC News, "I'm Being Sued for What?", 2 May 2007
- ^ See Gerlin. See also Ralph Nader & Wesley J. Smith, No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America (1996) ISBN 0375752587, 268