Consumer Law

Ronald McDonald--Stranger on the playground?

By Stephen Gardner

In June, my organization the Center for Science in the Public Interest gave notice to McDonald's that, unless it stopped predating on small children by offering them toys to get them to pester their parents for a Happy Meal, we would bring a state consumer protection lawsuit based on the developmental fact that young kids just don?t understand that an ad or other marketing tool is anything other than helpful advice. 

McDonald's, on the other hand, is all grown up and it knows precisely what it?s doing. Roy Bergold, who was McDonald's advertising head for 29 years, recently bragged, ?Sure, we marketed to kids. As Ray Kroc said, if you had $1 to spend on marketing, spend it on kids, because they bring mom and dad. . . . Parents should totally control their kids. Yeah, right. Research says that seven-year-olds and younger accept what we say in advertising as the truth. Heck, three-year-olds can identify brands using just their corporate logos. According to a survey commissioned by the Center for a New American Dream back in 2002, the average kid asks his parent for something nine times before the parent gives in. . . . What?s a mother to do under this assault?? (My emphasis.)

Wow, huh? And this comes from an apologist who got rich shilling for McDonald?s.

Details of our lawsuit are in our notice letter.

McDonald?s didn?t take it so well. They decided that they were the injured party, and wrote us a letter that did pretty much everything but address the merits of our scientific and legal claims.

McDonald's found its supporters in the right wing ? someone started an email campaign that got me quite a few emails. My favorite nasty email came from some guy who for some reason decided I lived in Cali: "You deserve all the fags, illegals, muslims and baby killers that you love so much." (I mean, how did he know?)

Corporate lackeys jumped in as well. My favorite one of these is this twisted piece of reasoning from an editor of trade journals. In other words, he?s not a lawyer, but he plays one on the Web:

?I looked at the detail of CSPI?s legal threats: They?re weak. CSPI claims McD?s violates several state consumer laws because advertising to kids is ?inherently deceptive, because young kids are not developmentally advanced enough to understand the persuasive intent of marketing.? This, as a fact, is true. But good luck proving as a mater [sic] of law that offering a Buzz Lightyear with a burger, and then delivering same to anyone who pays, is somehow a fraud.? (My emphasis.}

Dude! Our lawsuit is based on deception, so I?m glad you agree with us. We aren?t suing under fraud, so we don?t need good luck, just good sense. And a law degree. Or at least the willingness to read the actual laws at issue.

In fairness to this fellow, I should make it clear the CSPI also did not threaten to sue for products liability, securities fraud, debt collection abuse, environmental damages, or because Ronald McDonald is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.

We gave McDonald's 30 days to respond. The letter they sent was not a response to our notice, but really more of a press release. It?s telling that we got our copy of that letter from a Wall Street Journal reporter, not from McDonald's. (Our copy eventually showed up, but not for a few days ?McDonald's excels at delivering fast junk foods but fails miserably at delivering fast junk letters.)

Today, July 22, is the 30th day of the get-out-of-lawsuit-free card we gave McDonald's. Still no substantive response from McDonald's, but we are not sitting by the mailbox. Instead, we continue to prepare our lawsuit.

Full post as published by CL&P Blog on July 22, 2010 (boomark / email).