E-Z Cheeze Money
November 28, 2022 11:30 AM Subscribe
South Florida woman "might not have bothered buying the Shells & Cheese product 'had she known the truth.'" Kraft Heinz being sued [WaPo link] in a class action lawsuit because it takes more time to open up their container, add water, and stir than the packaging alleges.
One lawyer says “I’ve gotten a lot of flak about this case, but deceptive advertising is deceptive advertising.” The other attorney on the case seems to be on a crusade against "deceptive" packaging.
[MSN link if WaPo is paywalled.]
One lawyer says “I’ve gotten a lot of flak about this case, but deceptive advertising is deceptive advertising.” The other attorney on the case seems to be on a crusade against "deceptive" packaging.
[MSN link if WaPo is paywalled.]
Oh, plaintiffs bar, don't ever change...
posted by the sobsister at 11:40 AM on November 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by the sobsister at 11:40 AM on November 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
It's this generation's McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit.
posted by Keith Talent at 11:43 AM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Keith Talent at 11:43 AM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Unlike this case, the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was not frivolous.
posted by jellywerker at 11:44 AM on November 28, 2022 [188 favorites]
posted by jellywerker at 11:44 AM on November 28, 2022 [188 favorites]
It's this generation's McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit.
No, it's literally NOT that. The hot coffee lawsuit originated when nearly boiling coffee (180° I think -- far to hot to even drink) gave a woman 3rd degree burns on her genitals. Nobody has been burned here, and that hot coffee lawsuit was a lot more serious than people realize.
posted by hippybear at 11:46 AM on November 28, 2022 [115 favorites]
No, it's literally NOT that. The hot coffee lawsuit originated when nearly boiling coffee (180° I think -- far to hot to even drink) gave a woman 3rd degree burns on her genitals. Nobody has been burned here, and that hot coffee lawsuit was a lot more serious than people realize.
posted by hippybear at 11:46 AM on November 28, 2022 [115 favorites]
The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case You're Wrong About
This (the Post article) seems like fairly even-handed reporting, which is nice to see.
posted by box at 11:52 AM on November 28, 2022 [24 favorites]
This (the Post article) seems like fairly even-handed reporting, which is nice to see.
posted by box at 11:52 AM on November 28, 2022 [24 favorites]
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Miami, seeks more than $5 million in damages
That's a lot of cheddar. Certainly more than what's in the box.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:55 AM on November 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
That's a lot of cheddar. Certainly more than what's in the box.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:55 AM on November 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
Yeah, but when you consider the time it'll take to open the bag with a big dollar sign on it, open all the banded stacks, and pour all the loose bills onto your bed, it's really more like four mil.
posted by box at 11:56 AM on November 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by box at 11:56 AM on November 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
> "The consumers deserve better.”
I agree, which is why I don't consume Velveeta mac and cheese cups.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:00 PM on November 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
I agree, which is why I don't consume Velveeta mac and cheese cups.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:00 PM on November 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
Reminds me of the famous Subway Foot Long Sandwich isn't a foot long lawsuit. Probably will end with the same result.
posted by interogative mood at 12:01 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 12:01 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
I'm in favor of this suit. They're lying on the package. In a sane environment there'd be some calm regulatory process where Kraft would be like "oops, you're right, we'll clear that up". But this is America, so instead we have outrageous tort lawsuits. Don't love those either but it's the only way consumers have to defend themselves from false marketing.
posted by Nelson at 12:04 PM on November 28, 2022 [32 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 12:04 PM on November 28, 2022 [32 favorites]
Oh man, this is a tough one.
Yeah, with a multinational conglomerate misleading customers in one corner and the customers being misled in the other, it's hard to know how to pick a side.
posted by mhoye at 12:05 PM on November 28, 2022 [21 favorites]
Yeah, with a multinational conglomerate misleading customers in one corner and the customers being misled in the other, it's hard to know how to pick a side.
posted by mhoye at 12:05 PM on November 28, 2022 [21 favorites]
you know what's "false advertising"? "The Neverending Story" movie, that's what!!
posted by alchemist at 12:10 PM on November 28, 2022 [25 favorites]
posted by alchemist at 12:10 PM on November 28, 2022 [25 favorites]
They're lying on the package.
I disagree, and I'm sure Kraft Heinz will as well. Whether or not they're advertising deceptively hinges on the meaning of "ready in." Does it mean the timer starts the second you add water? open the container? open the box? take the box out of the cupboard? purchase the box at the market? Or does it describe the amount of time it takes to cook in the microwave? It strains credulity to take the position that it implies anything other than the cooking time, especially considering that the three and a half minute cooking time is right there on the package. This attorney might get some "f*ck off and go away" money from Kraft Heinz--and I'll bet that's what he's counting on in filing all these lawsuits--but if it comes to trial I have a hard time seeing him prevailing. If a tube of toothpaste said "only two minutes to brighter teeth" it would be ridiculous to assert that the timer started the moment the consumer opened the tube instead of the moment the consumer put brush to tooth.
posted by slkinsey at 12:16 PM on November 28, 2022 [20 favorites]
I disagree, and I'm sure Kraft Heinz will as well. Whether or not they're advertising deceptively hinges on the meaning of "ready in." Does it mean the timer starts the second you add water? open the container? open the box? take the box out of the cupboard? purchase the box at the market? Or does it describe the amount of time it takes to cook in the microwave? It strains credulity to take the position that it implies anything other than the cooking time, especially considering that the three and a half minute cooking time is right there on the package. This attorney might get some "f*ck off and go away" money from Kraft Heinz--and I'll bet that's what he's counting on in filing all these lawsuits--but if it comes to trial I have a hard time seeing him prevailing. If a tube of toothpaste said "only two minutes to brighter teeth" it would be ridiculous to assert that the timer started the moment the consumer opened the tube instead of the moment the consumer put brush to tooth.
posted by slkinsey at 12:16 PM on November 28, 2022 [20 favorites]
Subway Foot Long Sandwich isn't a foot long
Subway bread isn't even bread, apparently.
These lawsuits might seem silly, but they are important. Regulatory vacuums are deadly and companies constantly push the limits of what they can get away with, even within whatever meagre limits exist.
If equity holders had free rein to make and sell food how they pleased, we'd have melamine in baby formula or still be eating radium salts.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:16 PM on November 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
Subway bread isn't even bread, apparently.
These lawsuits might seem silly, but they are important. Regulatory vacuums are deadly and companies constantly push the limits of what they can get away with, even within whatever meagre limits exist.
If equity holders had free rein to make and sell food how they pleased, we'd have melamine in baby formula or still be eating radium salts.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:16 PM on November 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
Au pire on rira ensemble
On mangera du Kraft Dinner
C'est tout ce qu'on a de besoin
posted by pyramid termite at 12:17 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
On mangera du Kraft Dinner
C'est tout ce qu'on a de besoin
posted by pyramid termite at 12:17 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
I may be a corporate bootlicker but I don't see how this is misleading. 🤷
From the lawsuit, allegedly the marketing of 'ready in 3-1/2 minutes' is the reason that the price is "...higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way..." It's more expensive because of the Velveeta branding which is seen as slightly higher quality American cheese than Kraft cheese. The Kraft "Easy Mac" cups also say ready in 3.5 minutes but are much cheaper.
posted by muddgirl at 12:19 PM on November 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
From the lawsuit, allegedly the marketing of 'ready in 3-1/2 minutes' is the reason that the price is "...higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way..." It's more expensive because of the Velveeta branding which is seen as slightly higher quality American cheese than Kraft cheese. The Kraft "Easy Mac" cups also say ready in 3.5 minutes but are much cheaper.
posted by muddgirl at 12:19 PM on November 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
what i'm trying to figure out is how much this person thinks her time is worth
posted by pyramid termite at 12:21 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 12:21 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
Don't most corporations have vague marketing claims like "new and improved","tastes better", or "natural cheese product" for specifically these reasons? Quantifiable claims make these lawsuits possible.
posted by meowzilla at 12:23 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by meowzilla at 12:23 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
The article mentions that Sheehan has filed over 400 similar lawsuits against food & beverage companies in recent years; I'm curious to know his success rate. Is he just flooding the courts with bullshit?
My guess is he's "successful" in that corporations offer a reduced amount (which he accepts) in order to make the bullshit go away. This is ambulance-chasing, but without any actual injuries.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:29 PM on November 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
My guess is he's "successful" in that corporations offer a reduced amount (which he accepts) in order to make the bullshit go away. This is ambulance-chasing, but without any actual injuries.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:29 PM on November 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
Meanwhile, my husband has sued me for $1 billion for saying "I'll be ready in a minute." :(
posted by taz at 12:36 PM on November 28, 2022 [64 favorites]
posted by taz at 12:36 PM on November 28, 2022 [64 favorites]
I handled a Whopper with one hand once. Get your checkbook out, Burger "King."
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:38 PM on November 28, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:38 PM on November 28, 2022 [8 favorites]
This also strikes me as the kind of lawsuit designed to give politicians talking-points when they want to further erode consumer protections.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:39 PM on November 28, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 12:39 PM on November 28, 2022 [12 favorites]
I need to get in touch with this guy. Seems like he'd be willing to go after my false advertising pet peeve: movie studios / conglomerates using the phrase "own it now" for media on DVD, Blu-Ray or streaming services.
You absolutely do not "own" the content according to their terms of service and they'll happily try to prevent you from media shifting things you paid good money for in order to enjoy them in another format.
That practice seems much more deceptive and harmful than "it took a little longer than advertised to cook my Mac & Cheese."
posted by jzb at 12:43 PM on November 28, 2022 [18 favorites]
You absolutely do not "own" the content according to their terms of service and they'll happily try to prevent you from media shifting things you paid good money for in order to enjoy them in another format.
That practice seems much more deceptive and harmful than "it took a little longer than advertised to cook my Mac & Cheese."
posted by jzb at 12:43 PM on November 28, 2022 [18 favorites]
I have to ask if it’s truly false advertising. From the article, it says the product “lays out the steps on the back of the package,” and details the steps, calling out the 3.5 minutes is the microwave time, with other steps listed. A reasonable person, reading those, should infer the total effort to be greater than 3.5 minutes. Since it was on the back of the package rather than hidden on a pamphlet inside the product, the consumer can make an informed decision at the time of purchase (at worst, is comparable to “fine print”).
My other question: would this truly be a factor in a reasonable, non-litigious person’s thought process? If the actual prep time were double this (7 minutes), and another product advertised total effort at 6 minutes, how often would that be a factor? I would get it if they said 3.5 minutes and the actual total effort were 20 minutes, but this seems extreme.
posted by MrGuilt at 12:44 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
My other question: would this truly be a factor in a reasonable, non-litigious person’s thought process? If the actual prep time were double this (7 minutes), and another product advertised total effort at 6 minutes, how often would that be a factor? I would get it if they said 3.5 minutes and the actual total effort were 20 minutes, but this seems extreme.
posted by MrGuilt at 12:44 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
who do I sue for making me crave box mac n cheese?
posted by supermedusa at 12:45 PM on November 28, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by supermedusa at 12:45 PM on November 28, 2022 [6 favorites]
I disagree, and I'm sure Kraft Heinz will as well. Whether or not they're advertising deceptively hinges on the meaning of "ready in."
Plus they're risking consumers over-cooking the product if the claim was "Ready in 5:00" to account for all the "prep" work of opening and filling the cup. A certain subset of consumers will never fully read or grok even the simplest of instructions* and would instead nuke that cup for however much time it said on the face panel. And of course that would invite another troll lawsuit from this fencepost.
This attorney might get some "f*ck off and go away" money from Kraft Heinz
A someone who works in food packaging, yeah this is basically it. It'll be cheaper to settle than to fight it in court and I wouldn't be surprised if the next run of cups swaps out the language. (One of our clients sells a competing product and they use the more precise "microwaves in" language.)
* Several years ago National Brand Frozen Pizza updated their crust formula, resulting in slightly longer baking times. They added a 2" burst on the face panel, "Better Crust! See new baking instructions!". And then received several thousand calls the first week the new packaging was on-shelf because people were still using the old bake times and their pizza was soggy…
posted by nathan_teske at 12:46 PM on November 28, 2022 [11 favorites]
Plus they're risking consumers over-cooking the product if the claim was "Ready in 5:00" to account for all the "prep" work of opening and filling the cup. A certain subset of consumers will never fully read or grok even the simplest of instructions* and would instead nuke that cup for however much time it said on the face panel. And of course that would invite another troll lawsuit from this fencepost.
This attorney might get some "f*ck off and go away" money from Kraft Heinz
A someone who works in food packaging, yeah this is basically it. It'll be cheaper to settle than to fight it in court and I wouldn't be surprised if the next run of cups swaps out the language. (One of our clients sells a competing product and they use the more precise "microwaves in" language.)
* Several years ago National Brand Frozen Pizza updated their crust formula, resulting in slightly longer baking times. They added a 2" burst on the face panel, "Better Crust! See new baking instructions!". And then received several thousand calls the first week the new packaging was on-shelf because people were still using the old bake times and their pizza was soggy…
posted by nathan_teske at 12:46 PM on November 28, 2022 [11 favorites]
The NPR article says that he's based in New York, while the more recent WaPo article says that he's in West Palm Beach. I don't know if that implies success, but I did notice it.
On another note, are there any cup mac-and-cheeses that are actually good?
I've tried everything from Kraft (cup mac-n-cheese is the worst form of instant mac-n-cheese, which is in turn the worst form of mac-n-cheese in general) to Amy's (like Kraft minus some artificial colors) to Cracker Barrel (slightly more of a sharp cheddar flavor) to Cheetos (like Kraft plus all the artificial colors plus somehow more artificial-tasting) to Muscle Mac (a near-flavorless high-protein option which I can only imagine has cornered the prison commissary market and is now looking for new worlds to conquer), and it's all disappointing.
If you must have instant-ish mac and cheese, in my experience you're better off in the frozen foods section than the noodle aisle.
posted by box at 12:48 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
On another note, are there any cup mac-and-cheeses that are actually good?
I've tried everything from Kraft (cup mac-n-cheese is the worst form of instant mac-n-cheese, which is in turn the worst form of mac-n-cheese in general) to Amy's (like Kraft minus some artificial colors) to Cracker Barrel (slightly more of a sharp cheddar flavor) to Cheetos (like Kraft plus all the artificial colors plus somehow more artificial-tasting) to Muscle Mac (a near-flavorless high-protein option which I can only imagine has cornered the prison commissary market and is now looking for new worlds to conquer), and it's all disappointing.
If you must have instant-ish mac and cheese, in my experience you're better off in the frozen foods section than the noodle aisle.
posted by box at 12:48 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
it's all disappointing
A little fresh cracked black pepper, a sprinkle of garlic powder, and some aleppo pepper and you'll be suing yourself for false advertising!
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:57 PM on November 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
A little fresh cracked black pepper, a sprinkle of garlic powder, and some aleppo pepper and you'll be suing yourself for false advertising!
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:57 PM on November 28, 2022 [7 favorites]
If she had five million dollars, she wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner... but she would eat Kraft Dinner (of course she would!), she'd just eat more.
posted by clicking the 'Post Comment' button at 1:00 PM on November 28, 2022 [42 favorites]
posted by clicking the 'Post Comment' button at 1:00 PM on November 28, 2022 [42 favorites]
Not a fan of the excessive lawsuits in this country (and I do believe this is one of those), and I'm a fan of exactness in language. It would have been easy for them to say 'cooks' in 3.5 minutes instead of 'ready' in 3.5 minutes, and this wouldn't have been an issue.
posted by hydra77 at 1:08 PM on November 28, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by hydra77 at 1:08 PM on November 28, 2022 [9 favorites]
Yeah, with a multinational conglomerate misleading customers in one corner and the customers being misled in the other, it's hard to know how to pick a side.
Uh, I think the question of whether or not the customers are truly being misled is yet to be decided? Hence the lawsuit?
posted by Saxon Kane at 1:09 PM on November 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
Uh, I think the question of whether or not the customers are truly being misled is yet to be decided? Hence the lawsuit?
posted by Saxon Kane at 1:09 PM on November 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
While we're at it, could we also go after Big Recipe for claiming total prep + cook time is , say, 1 hour when "prep" assumes that you've already dug around in your spices to find something appropriate, measured all of the things that need measuring and set them aside for when they're needed, gone through any pre-preparation process like marinating overnight, run to the store to grab that one exotic thing no one has in their home kitchen but the recipe author insists is absolutely critical... and let's not mention the time spent wading through food blogger prose to get to the actual recipe, especially when you accidentally close the window and have to look it up all over again
posted by treepour at 1:11 PM on November 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by treepour at 1:11 PM on November 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
On a related note, I tried one time to make an "hour long" sewable dress just to see how long that would take. I note that I had been sewing for probably at least 15-20 years at this point and was not a complete noob about it, albeit Not A Professional Sewer in "the industry" or anything like that. I picked a tube-shaped dress with the minimum amount of sewing needed so I wouldn't run into any kind of trouble about it, which I did not.
It took me 4 hours. (note: not me on that link, but her experience and mine were about the same.) Two hours of that was just literally laying out the fabric and the pieces and cutting out the pieces*, the other two hours was sewing.
* note: for those of you who don't sew, that involves laying out large amounts of fabric on a table, having to iron them flat, cutting out the pieces from the pattern and laying them onto the fabric, pinning them onto the fabric, and then finally cutting out the pieces and taking the patterns off. This is naturally painstaking and slow as shit.
Now, I didn't expect that "one hour" actually meant one hour (seriously, if you believe what people tell you, LOLOLOL at life, dude), and frankly, two hours of sewing for a "one hour" pattern for someone who is not a pro but not a noob is probably doing pretty good and fast. But I did seriously wonder how they determined "one hour," exactly. I presumed they meant only sewing only in the first place and not cutting pieces, but even then, still took double the time.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:14 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
It took me 4 hours. (note: not me on that link, but her experience and mine were about the same.) Two hours of that was just literally laying out the fabric and the pieces and cutting out the pieces*, the other two hours was sewing.
* note: for those of you who don't sew, that involves laying out large amounts of fabric on a table, having to iron them flat, cutting out the pieces from the pattern and laying them onto the fabric, pinning them onto the fabric, and then finally cutting out the pieces and taking the patterns off. This is naturally painstaking and slow as shit.
Now, I didn't expect that "one hour" actually meant one hour (seriously, if you believe what people tell you, LOLOLOL at life, dude), and frankly, two hours of sewing for a "one hour" pattern for someone who is not a pro but not a noob is probably doing pretty good and fast. But I did seriously wonder how they determined "one hour," exactly. I presumed they meant only sewing only in the first place and not cutting pieces, but even then, still took double the time.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:14 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
Wait'll she finds out about Minute Rice!
posted by mittens at 1:16 PM on November 28, 2022 [13 favorites]
posted by mittens at 1:16 PM on November 28, 2022 [13 favorites]
Reminds me of the famous Subway Foot Long Sandwich isn't a foot long lawsuit. Probably will end with the same result.
This isn't a class action suit, so perhaps not.
Or does it describe the amount of time it takes to cook in the microwave? It strains credulity to take the position that it implies anything other than the cooking time, especially considering that the three and a half minute cooking time is right there on the package.
I mostly agree with you, but it does note that the sauce thicken with sitting, meaning that it's not really ready after the 3.5 minutes of cooking time. But it'd be pretty easy to argue that, actually, it is "ready" after cooking but, for best results, you should wait another minute or two after stirring in the sauce.
From the lawsuit, allegedly the marketing of 'ready in 3-1/2 minutes' is the reason that the price is "...higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way..." It's more expensive because of the Velveeta branding which is seen as slightly higher quality American cheese than Kraft cheese.
Exactly! Velveeta was always more expensive than Kraft Dinner, even before they both brought in their quick, microwavable versions. Velveeta was marketed as a more premium product: KD for rich people, as we sometimes joked when I was joking up.
posted by asnider at 1:17 PM on November 28, 2022
This isn't a class action suit, so perhaps not.
Or does it describe the amount of time it takes to cook in the microwave? It strains credulity to take the position that it implies anything other than the cooking time, especially considering that the three and a half minute cooking time is right there on the package.
I mostly agree with you, but it does note that the sauce thicken with sitting, meaning that it's not really ready after the 3.5 minutes of cooking time. But it'd be pretty easy to argue that, actually, it is "ready" after cooking but, for best results, you should wait another minute or two after stirring in the sauce.
From the lawsuit, allegedly the marketing of 'ready in 3-1/2 minutes' is the reason that the price is "...higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way..." It's more expensive because of the Velveeta branding which is seen as slightly higher quality American cheese than Kraft cheese.
Exactly! Velveeta was always more expensive than Kraft Dinner, even before they both brought in their quick, microwavable versions. Velveeta was marketed as a more premium product: KD for rich people, as we sometimes joked when I was joking up.
posted by asnider at 1:17 PM on November 28, 2022
I wonder if this falls under puffery. A very popular example is the lawsuit against Canada Dry for claims that their ginger ale wasn't made with real ginger despite an ad campaign pretty much flat out saying it did have real ginger in it.
posted by Kitteh at 1:27 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Kitteh at 1:27 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Maybe one of the reasons that the US has so many lawsuits is because we've stripped away the regulatory powers of government so much that lawsuits are the only realistic regulatory mechanism. Sacramento Bee: Serial ADA filer in California submits 1,000 complaints after indictment on tax charges
posted by meowzilla at 1:30 PM on November 28, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by meowzilla at 1:30 PM on November 28, 2022 [6 favorites]
This isn't a class action suit, so perhaps not.
Oh ho ho of course it's a class action 🤣 more fees for the lawyer.
I don't actually hate these lawsuits in the context of how our current system works. I just wish companies didn't settle. If this is how we regulate businesses then we should have a national tax to pay for consumer lawsuits.
posted by muddgirl at 1:36 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Oh ho ho of course it's a class action 🤣 more fees for the lawyer.
I don't actually hate these lawsuits in the context of how our current system works. I just wish companies didn't settle. If this is how we regulate businesses then we should have a national tax to pay for consumer lawsuits.
posted by muddgirl at 1:36 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
A reasonable person, reading those, should infer the total effort to be greater than 3.5 minutes.
"Well of course a reasonable person would know that it's not ready in 3.5 minutes," is a pretty damning indictment of what we allow corporations to get away with.
Here's how it works:
First corporations lobby the government so that it stops regulating them, instead depending on a model of, "if consumers are wronged, they can just sue."
Then corporations get consumers to sign forced arbitration clauses so they give up the right to sue.
Failing that, corporations then lobby for "tort reform" that limits the amount of damages they have to pay when they get sued and lose.
And finally, corporations have a massive media campaign to paint any remaining lawsuits as "frivolous."
AND IT WORKS. I really, really, really thought that at this point we all knew that the McDonald's hot coffee case was not frivolous but caused by widespread, intentional, unsafe policies of McDonald's. I thought we all knew about the third degree burns and skin grafts it caused. But even here on Metafilter, one of the first comments is, "this is just like the hit coffee case."
If the fine for breaking the law is less than what the corporation saves by breaking the law, then it's only a law for everyone else.
posted by AlSweigart at 1:36 PM on November 28, 2022 [24 favorites]
"Well of course a reasonable person would know that it's not ready in 3.5 minutes," is a pretty damning indictment of what we allow corporations to get away with.
Here's how it works:
First corporations lobby the government so that it stops regulating them, instead depending on a model of, "if consumers are wronged, they can just sue."
Then corporations get consumers to sign forced arbitration clauses so they give up the right to sue.
Failing that, corporations then lobby for "tort reform" that limits the amount of damages they have to pay when they get sued and lose.
And finally, corporations have a massive media campaign to paint any remaining lawsuits as "frivolous."
AND IT WORKS. I really, really, really thought that at this point we all knew that the McDonald's hot coffee case was not frivolous but caused by widespread, intentional, unsafe policies of McDonald's. I thought we all knew about the third degree burns and skin grafts it caused. But even here on Metafilter, one of the first comments is, "this is just like the hit coffee case."
If the fine for breaking the law is less than what the corporation saves by breaking the law, then it's only a law for everyone else.
posted by AlSweigart at 1:36 PM on November 28, 2022 [24 favorites]
Now I'm obsessed with cup Mac and cheese marketing. Annie's says "Yumm in 2 minutes" is that fraud?
posted by muddgirl at 1:39 PM on November 28, 2022
posted by muddgirl at 1:39 PM on November 28, 2022
TBH I agree with this lawsuit. I’m a disabled person who has a limited amount of upright time every day and while this isn’t the worst offender, it’s certainly messed me up with other products. A lot of them take more than double the amount of time they say they will. Especially ones that require boiling water. It’s why I end up eating a lot of frozen meals or pre-prepared food, which people also shame you about. Those minutes are Very Meaningful to people who have certain disabilities and companies SHOULD be required to be truthful in what they say. And the answer of just reading the instructions doesn’t help when you are going off pictures of the front of the box while someone else does your grocery shopping. It also doesn’t help when you have brain fog.
If you are going to say something takes a certain amount of time, it should take that amount of time. Or just don’t say it.
posted by Bottlecap at 1:39 PM on November 28, 2022 [28 favorites]
If you are going to say something takes a certain amount of time, it should take that amount of time. Or just don’t say it.
posted by Bottlecap at 1:39 PM on November 28, 2022 [28 favorites]
It is a proposed class action. Nobody, other than perhaps the lawyers, is going to be getting a significant payday.
The suit will probably fail, for the reasons various people have pointed out, but I'm not convinced that it *should* fail. The company has clearly decided to mislead customers in hopes of getting more of them to buy their product. Lawsuits are a poor instrument for correcting this kind of misbehavior, but they're what we have.
(One of the reasons that lawsuits are a poor tool here is that our antiquated legal frameworks don't really capture the misconduct in this and countless similar cases. It's much like the refusal of (many US) courts to consider empirical evidence of customer confusion in design and trademark cases; by using the mythical "reasonable person" as a standard, the courts give companies free reign to take advantage of the tired and distracted.)
The fakers will always be with us. But I am a bit at a loss to understand what social value this kind of fakery has, that anyone would think that it should be protected from legal repercussions.
posted by Not A Thing at 1:40 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
The suit will probably fail, for the reasons various people have pointed out, but I'm not convinced that it *should* fail. The company has clearly decided to mislead customers in hopes of getting more of them to buy their product. Lawsuits are a poor instrument for correcting this kind of misbehavior, but they're what we have.
(One of the reasons that lawsuits are a poor tool here is that our antiquated legal frameworks don't really capture the misconduct in this and countless similar cases. It's much like the refusal of (many US) courts to consider empirical evidence of customer confusion in design and trademark cases; by using the mythical "reasonable person" as a standard, the courts give companies free reign to take advantage of the tired and distracted.)
The fakers will always be with us. But I am a bit at a loss to understand what social value this kind of fakery has, that anyone would think that it should be protected from legal repercussions.
posted by Not A Thing at 1:40 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
While we're at it, could we also go after Big Recipe for claiming...
...that you can caramelize onions in about five minutes.
posted by asnider at 1:41 PM on November 28, 2022 [23 favorites]
...that you can caramelize onions in about five minutes.
posted by asnider at 1:41 PM on November 28, 2022 [23 favorites]
Or does it describe the amount of time it takes to cook in the microwave?
TFA: "Those directions, the complaint says, “show that 3-and-a-half minutes is just the length of time to complete one of several steps.” A truthful label would have stated that the product takes 3½ minutes to cook in the microwave, it adds."
It does describe that, but it claims to describe something else. To take a description as meaning what the words actually say doesn't strain credulity to me, and the fact that anyone would argue that it does shows just how fucked up advertising is.
posted by Dysk at 1:41 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
TFA: "Those directions, the complaint says, “show that 3-and-a-half minutes is just the length of time to complete one of several steps.” A truthful label would have stated that the product takes 3½ minutes to cook in the microwave, it adds."
It does describe that, but it claims to describe something else. To take a description as meaning what the words actually say doesn't strain credulity to me, and the fact that anyone would argue that it does shows just how fucked up advertising is.
posted by Dysk at 1:41 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
Turns out I misread and it IS a proposed class action suit, so ignore my previous comment saying it wasn't. Oops.
posted by asnider at 1:41 PM on November 28, 2022
posted by asnider at 1:41 PM on November 28, 2022
Annie's says "Yumm in 2 minutes" is that fraud?
Yes. Maybe yum-with-one-m is an edge case, but that second m puts it way over the top.
posted by box at 1:41 PM on November 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
Yes. Maybe yum-with-one-m is an edge case, but that second m puts it way over the top.
posted by box at 1:41 PM on November 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'm just sitting here marveling at the power of framing to get normally leftist or at least liberal Mefites to line up on the side of a big corporation. Even bringing up the McDonald's case!
Golly geez golly.
posted by praemunire at 1:47 PM on November 28, 2022 [8 favorites]
Golly geez golly.
posted by praemunire at 1:47 PM on November 28, 2022 [8 favorites]
Puffery! That's where I'm a Viking! See previous comment for much more information, but "the thing in the package is not the thing I expected to find based on that package" cases are a dime a dozen and I will be shatteringly surprised if this doesn't just get tossed out.
First and foremost, without any tangible harm, there isn't much there there to file suit over. "I spent slightly longer doing a thing than I'd like" isn't really actionable.
Second, they'd have to prove on balance of probabilities that a reasonable person could not interpret that preparation time as meaning "it takes 3.5 minutes to cook the noodles once they are prepared for cooking." That would also be a steep hill to climb.
I'm sympathetic to people who feel misled by this packaging, but there's no leg for this to stand on; while the "minutes on the package versus minutes to actually cook from the time you intend to start to the time you eat" argument is a bit more tangible in real-world terms of normal deception, it's in the same broad category as "I bought Skittles and yet a unicorn did not come into my house and turn my couch into Skittles by touching it with its magic horn, I am going to sue."
People may not like puffery but it's not going anywhere, and this feels like it's categorically puffery.
posted by Shepherd at 1:51 PM on November 28, 2022 [6 favorites]
First and foremost, without any tangible harm, there isn't much there there to file suit over. "I spent slightly longer doing a thing than I'd like" isn't really actionable.
Second, they'd have to prove on balance of probabilities that a reasonable person could not interpret that preparation time as meaning "it takes 3.5 minutes to cook the noodles once they are prepared for cooking." That would also be a steep hill to climb.
I'm sympathetic to people who feel misled by this packaging, but there's no leg for this to stand on; while the "minutes on the package versus minutes to actually cook from the time you intend to start to the time you eat" argument is a bit more tangible in real-world terms of normal deception, it's in the same broad category as "I bought Skittles and yet a unicorn did not come into my house and turn my couch into Skittles by touching it with its magic horn, I am going to sue."
People may not like puffery but it's not going anywhere, and this feels like it's categorically puffery.
posted by Shepherd at 1:51 PM on November 28, 2022 [6 favorites]
I think the biggest case of all would be taking down Big Onion for saying you can sauté them in less than 30 minutes.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:54 PM on November 28, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:54 PM on November 28, 2022 [9 favorites]
The company has clearly decided to mislead customers in hopes of getting more of them to buy their product.
I wonder if this constitutes a concerted attempt to mislead or if it's merely "well, we have to say something on the box FFS."
TBH I find this more interesting than it probably should be because I'm actually interested to see if they could prove that this is compelling advertising. How many people actually would choose a box of a cheesy pasta product based on taking 3.5 minutes vs. 4 minutes or 10? ("Takes 60 minutes!" would probably not fly off the shelves.)
Also I would love to send this to people who used to complain at me because I wouldn't let them (at legal's insistence) call things "secure" or use absolutes or benchmarks without a lot of qualifications or proofs. Yes, kids, people do get sued for these things once in a while and the costs are substantial. It weakens the writing, but that's better than getting sued.
posted by jzb at 2:01 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
I wonder if this constitutes a concerted attempt to mislead or if it's merely "well, we have to say something on the box FFS."
TBH I find this more interesting than it probably should be because I'm actually interested to see if they could prove that this is compelling advertising. How many people actually would choose a box of a cheesy pasta product based on taking 3.5 minutes vs. 4 minutes or 10? ("Takes 60 minutes!" would probably not fly off the shelves.)
Also I would love to send this to people who used to complain at me because I wouldn't let them (at legal's insistence) call things "secure" or use absolutes or benchmarks without a lot of qualifications or proofs. Yes, kids, people do get sued for these things once in a while and the costs are substantial. It weakens the writing, but that's better than getting sued.
posted by jzb at 2:01 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
I'm sympathetic to people who feel misled by this packaging, but there's no leg for this to stand on; while the "minutes on the package versus minutes to actually cook from the time you intend to start to the time you eat" argument is a bit more tangible in real-world terms of normal deception, it's in the same broad category as "I bought Skittles and yet a unicorn did not come into my house and turn my couch into Skittles by touching it with its magic horn, I am going to sue."
This may well be perfectly valid US legal perspective, but its also bullshit: "ready in 3.5 minutes" when it isn't true would be like a skittles packet proclaiming "a unicorn will run up to you and turn stuff into skittles!" which is not a claim the packaging makes. A concrete, quantifiable, testable claim, on the box, is not the same as some imagery in a TV ad somewhere, whatever US courts may say about the matter.
I think the biggest case of all would be taking down Big Onion for saying you can sauté them in less than 30 minutes.
It's not a lie, it's the honest truth. After sautéing onions for five minutes, you have sautéed onions. It'll take you another half hour to an hour to properly brown them however (though if you'll accept crispy rather than caramelised, you can do that in five minutes too!) "Sautéed" states a method of cooking, not a level of doneness.
This is not to say that recipes telling you hot can get soft browned onions for French onion soup on five minutes can't fuck off. They very much can.
posted by Dysk at 2:03 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
This may well be perfectly valid US legal perspective, but its also bullshit: "ready in 3.5 minutes" when it isn't true would be like a skittles packet proclaiming "a unicorn will run up to you and turn stuff into skittles!" which is not a claim the packaging makes. A concrete, quantifiable, testable claim, on the box, is not the same as some imagery in a TV ad somewhere, whatever US courts may say about the matter.
I think the biggest case of all would be taking down Big Onion for saying you can sauté them in less than 30 minutes.
It's not a lie, it's the honest truth. After sautéing onions for five minutes, you have sautéed onions. It'll take you another half hour to an hour to properly brown them however (though if you'll accept crispy rather than caramelised, you can do that in five minutes too!) "Sautéed" states a method of cooking, not a level of doneness.
This is not to say that recipes telling you hot can get soft browned onions for French onion soup on five minutes can't fuck off. They very much can.
posted by Dysk at 2:03 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
box: "are there any cup mac-and-cheeses that are actually good?"
If you can get your hands on Japan-localized Knorr cups (lots of variety, not just mac'n'cheese), they are a completely different world.
posted by porpoise at 2:05 PM on November 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
If you can get your hands on Japan-localized Knorr cups (lots of variety, not just mac'n'cheese), they are a completely different world.
posted by porpoise at 2:05 PM on November 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
Big Onion (possibly NSFW). A music video by Detroit Grand Pubahs.
posted by Nelson at 2:22 PM on November 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 2:22 PM on November 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
I would get it if they said 3.5 minutes and the actual total effort were 20 minutes, but this seems extreme.
Well, this is the crux of the problem, isn't it? What's going on here, in multiple ways, is lines being drawn. Some are drawing a line saying 5 mins is close enough to 3.5 to make this frivolous. Others are drawing a line saying the back of the packaging makes it clear that the 3.5 mins only applies to one of the steps. Kraft is drawing a line at what they can get away with without, they think, being sued.
As soon as lines are being drawn, you're fucked.
Someone at Kraft legal was paid good money to decide on the language for the ad on the front of the package and they decided, in this case, that the lie was worth the risk.
Those saying, "A reasonable person should know..." should keep in mind people also say that "a reasonable person should know that Alex Jones is a liar" or "a reasonable person knows that Tucker Carlson is performance art."
The reasonable person doesn't exist. But if I give you the benefit of the doubt that they do, why don't they work as a copy writer at Kraft? Or in Kraft legal? Why do those reasonable people get to shift their responsibility to a third party?
Kraft is clearly in the wrong here and they should be punished for intentionally deceiving their customers. The line should be between truth a fiction, not fiction and less fiction. Don't help them by offering to move it or look the other way when they do.
posted by dobbs at 2:31 PM on November 28, 2022 [9 favorites]
Well, this is the crux of the problem, isn't it? What's going on here, in multiple ways, is lines being drawn. Some are drawing a line saying 5 mins is close enough to 3.5 to make this frivolous. Others are drawing a line saying the back of the packaging makes it clear that the 3.5 mins only applies to one of the steps. Kraft is drawing a line at what they can get away with without, they think, being sued.
As soon as lines are being drawn, you're fucked.
Someone at Kraft legal was paid good money to decide on the language for the ad on the front of the package and they decided, in this case, that the lie was worth the risk.
Those saying, "A reasonable person should know..." should keep in mind people also say that "a reasonable person should know that Alex Jones is a liar" or "a reasonable person knows that Tucker Carlson is performance art."
The reasonable person doesn't exist. But if I give you the benefit of the doubt that they do, why don't they work as a copy writer at Kraft? Or in Kraft legal? Why do those reasonable people get to shift their responsibility to a third party?
Kraft is clearly in the wrong here and they should be punished for intentionally deceiving their customers. The line should be between truth a fiction, not fiction and less fiction. Don't help them by offering to move it or look the other way when they do.
posted by dobbs at 2:31 PM on November 28, 2022 [9 favorites]
they'd have to prove on balance of probabilities that a reasonable person could not interpret that preparation time as meaning "it takes 3.5 minutes to cook the noodles once they are prepared for cooking."
While I'm not an expert in the consumer fraud laws of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Utah, New Mexico, Alaska, Iowa, Tennessee, and Virginia, I'd be surprised if they all adhered to this highly idiosyncratic standard, which is not applicable in any of the state consumer fraud contexts I do know about.
The question of what constitutes deception is a heavily litigated one, but the FTC standard, for example, is "a representation, omission, or practice is deceptive if it is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances [plus other prongs]," and the FTC has taken the position that "[a] material practice that misleads a significant minority of reasonable consumers is deceptive.” Similarly, NY only requires that the statement be "likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances." That a reasonable consumer could not interpret the statement in a way compatible with the truth is simply not a standard I'm familiar with.
posted by praemunire at 2:41 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
While I'm not an expert in the consumer fraud laws of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Utah, New Mexico, Alaska, Iowa, Tennessee, and Virginia, I'd be surprised if they all adhered to this highly idiosyncratic standard, which is not applicable in any of the state consumer fraud contexts I do know about.
The question of what constitutes deception is a heavily litigated one, but the FTC standard, for example, is "a representation, omission, or practice is deceptive if it is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances [plus other prongs]," and the FTC has taken the position that "[a] material practice that misleads a significant minority of reasonable consumers is deceptive.” Similarly, NY only requires that the statement be "likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances." That a reasonable consumer could not interpret the statement in a way compatible with the truth is simply not a standard I'm familiar with.
posted by praemunire at 2:41 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
Defendant then notes that ‘CHEESE SAUCE WILL THICKEN UPON STANDING.
Ok this part is interesting to me. If you cook a pizza, you'll want to let it sit so that it doesn't burn your mouth but it will be "a pizza" the entire time. I'm ok with the manufacturer leaving that step out.
Microwave mac and cheese, however, comes as "noodles with starch powder". You add water to that, heat it, and add cheese, at which point it's "noodles with starch powder and cheese powder all in water". And then after it sits the starches thicken up and it's "noodles with cheese sauce".
It's gross soup until it cools and thickens. I want that time put on the clock.
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 2:58 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Ok this part is interesting to me. If you cook a pizza, you'll want to let it sit so that it doesn't burn your mouth but it will be "a pizza" the entire time. I'm ok with the manufacturer leaving that step out.
Microwave mac and cheese, however, comes as "noodles with starch powder". You add water to that, heat it, and add cheese, at which point it's "noodles with starch powder and cheese powder all in water". And then after it sits the starches thicken up and it's "noodles with cheese sauce".
It's gross soup until it cools and thickens. I want that time put on the clock.
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 2:58 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
In my experience, this is the case with a least 90% of recipes or printed instructions that I come across. I might just be slow at doing things.
posted by piyushnz at 3:12 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by piyushnz at 3:12 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
I might just be slow at doing things.
It could be that, or we actually need a lawsuit like this to stem the near-universal practice of shortening stated times for things.
posted by Dysk at 3:23 PM on November 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
It could be that, or we actually need a lawsuit like this to stem the near-universal practice of shortening stated times for things.
posted by Dysk at 3:23 PM on November 28, 2022 [3 favorites]
The local Larry's Giant Subs gleefully had the wrong prices for all their menu items the other day, which I only found out when it was time to pay, and the checkout person's only explanation when called on it was "the menu's old," even though it was an electronic TV-monitor menu. I had no recourse other than just walking out without paying or food. That kind of thing happens more and more often, but the news deigns to tell me about someone suing the poor company that it doesn't take exactly as long as it says on the back of the box to make macaroni and cheese, and this is going to be the thing that my friends tell me about in the coming weeks.
I am in agreement with Thorzdad, this is suspiciously like a cooked-up event, someone who is trying to push a media narrative of frivolous litigation in order to harm what legal consumer protections remain in the US, like the firestorm around that McDonalds coffee lawsuit (which has been brought up several times before in this thread, I see). And what better way to push that narrative that to actually do it. Anyone can sue over anything if they have the money for it, although the case could be rejected out of hand by the courts.
IANAL, but generally, it's harder to push a class action suit in the US nowadays than it used to be for a variety of reasons. Wikipedia's section on it is informative. Yet this story pushes a narrative that this suits are out of control? Are they, really?
posted by JHarris at 3:41 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
I am in agreement with Thorzdad, this is suspiciously like a cooked-up event, someone who is trying to push a media narrative of frivolous litigation in order to harm what legal consumer protections remain in the US, like the firestorm around that McDonalds coffee lawsuit (which has been brought up several times before in this thread, I see). And what better way to push that narrative that to actually do it. Anyone can sue over anything if they have the money for it, although the case could be rejected out of hand by the courts.
IANAL, but generally, it's harder to push a class action suit in the US nowadays than it used to be for a variety of reasons. Wikipedia's section on it is informative. Yet this story pushes a narrative that this suits are out of control? Are they, really?
posted by JHarris at 3:41 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
I'm just sitting here marveling at the power of framing to get normally leftist or at least liberal Mefites to line up on the side of a big corporation. Even bringing up the McDonald's case!
There are tons of things corporations can be rightfully attacked on. There is no need to add this to the list if it's not merited? What it mostly does is cause some people who would otherwise be sympathetic to left-wing ideals to suspect they may not be correct. It's doubt-enabling. And it doesn't even matter if most, or even many, people fall for it, because numerically a few people will. And a lot of people who already have it in their heads that these lawsuits are extremely common will see it as confirming their beliefs.
posted by JHarris at 3:52 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
There are tons of things corporations can be rightfully attacked on. There is no need to add this to the list if it's not merited? What it mostly does is cause some people who would otherwise be sympathetic to left-wing ideals to suspect they may not be correct. It's doubt-enabling. And it doesn't even matter if most, or even many, people fall for it, because numerically a few people will. And a lot of people who already have it in their heads that these lawsuits are extremely common will see it as confirming their beliefs.
posted by JHarris at 3:52 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
There are tons of things corporations can be rightfully attacked on...What it mostly does is cause some people who would otherwise be sympathetic to left-wing ideals to suspect they may not be correct. It's doubt-enabling.
Considering the gross misrepresentations of the entirely legitimate McDonald's case in the media, so powerful that Mefites are still alluding to claims debunked ages ago, it should be plain that a case doesn't need to be frivolous for it to be presented as such. This is a concept that most people do seem to get when it comes to other conservative moves in other fields, so I'm not sure what the difficulty presented here is.
There is no need to add this to the list if it's not merited?
As others have noted above, the deliberate strangulation of government regulatory capacity means that one of the few tools left to fight consumer deception in many fields is private litigation, which is, in many instances, necessarily motivated financially and not necessarily chosen for maximum societal impact and wisest prioritization. (Honestly, I don't know if that's the case here; I haven't had a chance to carefully evaluate the allegations or the evidence backing them up; but then neither has anyone else reading this.) Oh, but then it looks like fighting consumer fraud with private litigation isn't the best thing, either! We'd better limit that, too! This is all on purpose, and, I'm sorry, but you are dutifully lining up to be the right's sucker on this.
Finally, if the corporation has even arguably broken the law, then those injured certainly have the right to pursue their statutory remedies. That's what the courts are for: evaluating such claims. (And if the claims are frivolous, there are mechanisms for sanctioning those involved.) Do you make a point of complaining when corporations tie up infinite court resources with their ridiculous contractual disputes? How many people argued that Musk's completely frivolous bullshit argument that he shouldn't have been forced to consummate the Twitter acquisition cast disrepute on corporate law and meant such cases shouldn't be allowed or should be curtailed? But somehow, this particular kind of private dispute calls for hand-wringing? How about I decide that your dispute with your neighbor over whether your property line runs five feet to the north or to the south is wasteful and people should stop bringing property disputes, too?
posted by praemunire at 4:30 PM on November 28, 2022 [10 favorites]
Considering the gross misrepresentations of the entirely legitimate McDonald's case in the media, so powerful that Mefites are still alluding to claims debunked ages ago, it should be plain that a case doesn't need to be frivolous for it to be presented as such. This is a concept that most people do seem to get when it comes to other conservative moves in other fields, so I'm not sure what the difficulty presented here is.
There is no need to add this to the list if it's not merited?
As others have noted above, the deliberate strangulation of government regulatory capacity means that one of the few tools left to fight consumer deception in many fields is private litigation, which is, in many instances, necessarily motivated financially and not necessarily chosen for maximum societal impact and wisest prioritization. (Honestly, I don't know if that's the case here; I haven't had a chance to carefully evaluate the allegations or the evidence backing them up; but then neither has anyone else reading this.) Oh, but then it looks like fighting consumer fraud with private litigation isn't the best thing, either! We'd better limit that, too! This is all on purpose, and, I'm sorry, but you are dutifully lining up to be the right's sucker on this.
Finally, if the corporation has even arguably broken the law, then those injured certainly have the right to pursue their statutory remedies. That's what the courts are for: evaluating such claims. (And if the claims are frivolous, there are mechanisms for sanctioning those involved.) Do you make a point of complaining when corporations tie up infinite court resources with their ridiculous contractual disputes? How many people argued that Musk's completely frivolous bullshit argument that he shouldn't have been forced to consummate the Twitter acquisition cast disrepute on corporate law and meant such cases shouldn't be allowed or should be curtailed? But somehow, this particular kind of private dispute calls for hand-wringing? How about I decide that your dispute with your neighbor over whether your property line runs five feet to the north or to the south is wasteful and people should stop bringing property disputes, too?
posted by praemunire at 4:30 PM on November 28, 2022 [10 favorites]
This smells like a lawyer looking for a payday rather than a legitimate claim.
I hope I don’t get sued for that opinion.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 4:30 PM on November 28, 2022
I hope I don’t get sued for that opinion.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 4:30 PM on November 28, 2022
My other question: would this truly be a factor in a reasonable, non-litigious person’s thought process? If the actual prep time were double this (7 minutes), and another product advertised total effort at 6 minutes, how often would that be a factor? I would get it if they said 3.5 minutes and the actual total effort were 20 minutes, but this seems extreme.
By the way, this is a fair question, and is generally covered by the "materiality" prong of a deceptiveness claim (i.e., whether it is likely to affect or have been a factor in determining consumer behavior). It's the kind of thing that courts decide all the time. The edge cases establish where the limits are.
(It would not surprise me one bit, by the way, if discovery turned up emails saying, "It took [x] time from start to finish, and 3.5 minutes to cook once in the cup. What time should we put on the label?" "Well, our competitor says 5, so let's go with 3.5.")
posted by praemunire at 4:49 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
By the way, this is a fair question, and is generally covered by the "materiality" prong of a deceptiveness claim (i.e., whether it is likely to affect or have been a factor in determining consumer behavior). It's the kind of thing that courts decide all the time. The edge cases establish where the limits are.
(It would not surprise me one bit, by the way, if discovery turned up emails saying, "It took [x] time from start to finish, and 3.5 minutes to cook once in the cup. What time should we put on the label?" "Well, our competitor says 5, so let's go with 3.5.")
posted by praemunire at 4:49 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
Just wanted to say thanks to Bottlecap for their comment about disability and this kinda stuff, which might seem like small potatoes to able folks, but means a ton to people with any number or mental or physical hurdles in the way of accomplishing small potatoes like, you know, feeding themselves. I have found it useful as I grow up to cool it on hot takes about lawsuits or strange devices until I think about how it can help people who aren't me. It does seem like if I'm grocery shopping for a friend who only has a certain number of upright minutes a day, I would like to know at a glance how many spoons they'd have to spend cooking a thing.
Also, thanks, Bottlecap, for the phrase "upright minutes." I hadn't seen it before, and since I got the glamorous long covid, it is a phrase I have needed and didn't have yet.
This lawsuit does seem like a silly headline-grabby scenario for people who would like to make it harder to sue companies, so thank you also to the people who pointed out how this all works in a larger deregulatory scene, where it's the only recourse sometimes. I'm not sure I trust any of the parties involved in this lawsuit, but I appreciate the conversation happening here.
posted by lauranesson at 4:50 PM on November 28, 2022 [16 favorites]
Also, thanks, Bottlecap, for the phrase "upright minutes." I hadn't seen it before, and since I got the glamorous long covid, it is a phrase I have needed and didn't have yet.
This lawsuit does seem like a silly headline-grabby scenario for people who would like to make it harder to sue companies, so thank you also to the people who pointed out how this all works in a larger deregulatory scene, where it's the only recourse sometimes. I'm not sure I trust any of the parties involved in this lawsuit, but I appreciate the conversation happening here.
posted by lauranesson at 4:50 PM on November 28, 2022 [16 favorites]
this feels like it's categorically puffery
Puffery generally refers to inherently non-verifiable or facially hyperbolic statements. So, like, "the best mac and cheese in the world!" or "mac and cheese so good, it'll knock your socks off!" Not statements of fact like "done in 3.5 minutes."
This is really a materiality case.
posted by praemunire at 4:53 PM on November 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
Puffery generally refers to inherently non-verifiable or facially hyperbolic statements. So, like, "the best mac and cheese in the world!" or "mac and cheese so good, it'll knock your socks off!" Not statements of fact like "done in 3.5 minutes."
This is really a materiality case.
posted by praemunire at 4:53 PM on November 28, 2022 [4 favorites]
It's gross soup until it cools and thickens.
Whenever I make stovetop mac and cheese, I have the opposite problem. I always add too much cheese (because why not?), so I have to eat it immediately while it's still saucy; because when it cools and thickens, it becomes a solid block of cheese with some embedded pasta in it.
posted by meowzilla at 5:20 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
Whenever I make stovetop mac and cheese, I have the opposite problem. I always add too much cheese (because why not?), so I have to eat it immediately while it's still saucy; because when it cools and thickens, it becomes a solid block of cheese with some embedded pasta in it.
posted by meowzilla at 5:20 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
I think the biggest case of all would be taking down Big Onion for saying you can sauté them in less than 30 minutes.
Apologies to Metafilter, but all that Big Onion needs to do is submit a box of Arm and Hammer as evidence. A small spoon of that will brown onions in no time — well less than 30 minutes. It won't be as palatable, maybe, but then you can't litigate taste.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:22 PM on November 28, 2022
Apologies to Metafilter, but all that Big Onion needs to do is submit a box of Arm and Hammer as evidence. A small spoon of that will brown onions in no time — well less than 30 minutes. It won't be as palatable, maybe, but then you can't litigate taste.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:22 PM on November 28, 2022
so I have to eat it immediately while it's still saucy; because when it cools and thickens, it becomes a solid block of cheese
Add some condensed milk? That’s part of the recipe I use, which calls for a LOT of cheese and it doesn’t seem to solidify.
I say “seem to” because it never has leftovers so it’s possible I’m wrong.
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 5:34 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
Add some condensed milk? That’s part of the recipe I use, which calls for a LOT of cheese and it doesn’t seem to solidify.
I say “seem to” because it never has leftovers so it’s possible I’m wrong.
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 5:34 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
I could see this being proven as misleading advertising that would require them to change the packaging to conform to reality, but it seems quite a stretch for the damage part of the claim.
If you pipelined cooking 100 of those things you could show that it requires 352 minutes which averages to 3.5min per item, but that’s quite a sleight of hand and a departure from the typical scenario, unless we expect people to cook 5 of this back to back to feed a family, then the 3.5 min in the microwave becomes the limiting factor.
I’m massively overthinking that Mac and cheese thing.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 7:58 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
If you pipelined cooking 100 of those things you could show that it requires 352 minutes which averages to 3.5min per item, but that’s quite a sleight of hand and a departure from the typical scenario, unless we expect people to cook 5 of this back to back to feed a family, then the 3.5 min in the microwave becomes the limiting factor.
I’m massively overthinking that Mac and cheese thing.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 7:58 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Oh, but then it looks like fighting consumer fraud with private litigation isn't the best thing, either! We'd better limit that, too! This is all on purpose, and, I'm sorry, but you are dutifully lining up to be the right's sucker on this.
Er, I think we may actually be of a similar mind there? I didn't say this should be limited, but I think it's possible that this lawsuit was filed maybee to drive a media narrative that it should be limited, to give people a reason to maintain their prior belief that most of these suits are frivolus by presenting one that is, or at least much seems to be, frivolous. To give the news another McDonalds coffee case to make the right roll their eyes. The data that the person who filed this suit had done 400 of them before might be indicative of this? But, to be clear, this is all conjecture.
posted by JHarris at 8:59 PM on November 28, 2022
Er, I think we may actually be of a similar mind there? I didn't say this should be limited, but I think it's possible that this lawsuit was filed maybee to drive a media narrative that it should be limited, to give people a reason to maintain their prior belief that most of these suits are frivolus by presenting one that is, or at least much seems to be, frivolous. To give the news another McDonalds coffee case to make the right roll their eyes. The data that the person who filed this suit had done 400 of them before might be indicative of this? But, to be clear, this is all conjecture.
posted by JHarris at 8:59 PM on November 28, 2022
> There are four steps listed in the directions on the back of the package: Remove the lid and cheese sauce pouch, add water to the fill line and stir, microwave for 3 1/2 minutes then stir in the cheese sauce, which the instructions note "will thicken upon standing."
She won't win in America's system of justice, but she's right. Just the 'thickening' step, after the microwaving and everything else, takes about five minutes, in my experience.
posted by Doug Holland at 9:19 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
She won't win in America's system of justice, but she's right. Just the 'thickening' step, after the microwaving and everything else, takes about five minutes, in my experience.
posted by Doug Holland at 9:19 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Maybe this lawyer is mad as hell, and isn't going to take it anymore.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 9:21 PM on November 28, 2022
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 9:21 PM on November 28, 2022
I think it's possible that this lawsuit was filed maybee to drive a media narrative that it should be limited, to give people a reason to maintain their prior belief that most of these suits are frivolus by presenting one that is, or at least much seems to be, frivolous.
It's a pretty standard class action. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of putative class actions filed yearly in the U.S., and, I promise you, this cannot possibly be the dumbest even of this year. No conspiracy theory needed. By entertaining the idea that private litigants seeking to vindicate their rights ought to be criticized for apparent frivolity, you are buying into the right's priors. It's a trap. That's all I'm saying.
posted by praemunire at 9:44 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
It's a pretty standard class action. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of putative class actions filed yearly in the U.S., and, I promise you, this cannot possibly be the dumbest even of this year. No conspiracy theory needed. By entertaining the idea that private litigants seeking to vindicate their rights ought to be criticized for apparent frivolity, you are buying into the right's priors. It's a trap. That's all I'm saying.
posted by praemunire at 9:44 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
On another note, are there any cup mac-and-cheeses that are actually good?
Are you kidding? Instant macaroni and cheese in the cup is ambrosia.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:28 PM on November 28, 2022
Are you kidding? Instant macaroni and cheese in the cup is ambrosia.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:28 PM on November 28, 2022
(And there’s no good reason not to say or type the whole word “macaroni.” It’s not “antidisestablishmentarianism” or something.)
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:31 PM on November 28, 2022
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:31 PM on November 28, 2022
"Do these sound like the actions of a man who had ALL he could eat?"
posted by The Tensor at 10:40 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by The Tensor at 10:40 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
People may not like puffery but it's not going anywhere, and this feels like it's categorically puffery.
This is not puffery. The package is making an objective and verifiable claim that the product does not meet. That's textbook false advertising.
I think the method of enforcement is stupid, but it's what we have in this country given how toothless the FTC is most of the time. And yeah, the lawyers are the only ones who really win financially, but we all win when companies can't blatantly lie about their products and get away with it.
posted by wierdo at 11:19 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
This is not puffery. The package is making an objective and verifiable claim that the product does not meet. That's textbook false advertising.
I think the method of enforcement is stupid, but it's what we have in this country given how toothless the FTC is most of the time. And yeah, the lawyers are the only ones who really win financially, but we all win when companies can't blatantly lie about their products and get away with it.
posted by wierdo at 11:19 PM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]
Lawsuits like this Mac & Cheese one get press so that the general public gets the wrong impression about these lawsuits. The site www.classaction.org has a list of lawsuits that you should know about.
posted by interogative mood at 11:23 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 11:23 PM on November 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
By the way, if you want something about this lawsuit to laugh about, watch Steve Lehto's video where he ridicules the drafting. It's pretty bad, even if the substance of the underlying claim makes sense.
Seems like the attorney is churning these things out without much thought or care, which is unfortunate since it invites criticism of one of the few means we have of holding large corporations accountable.
posted by wierdo at 11:26 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
Seems like the attorney is churning these things out without much thought or care, which is unfortunate since it invites criticism of one of the few means we have of holding large corporations accountable.
posted by wierdo at 11:26 PM on November 28, 2022 [1 favorite]
While I agree that the mildly frivolous nature of this lawsuit reduces trust in the legal system, it seems a stretch to believe these lawsuits are put forth with the backing of politicians or by the corporations themselves to achieve that same goal. It's not a grand conspiracy; the plaintiff and lawyer think they have a shot, or the cost is so low that they just need to win a few (out of many).
The only reason there's any press on this case is that the news thinks it sounds silly and can get a lot of eyeballs. If it was a little more grounded in fact, it wouldn't be interesting; if it was a little less grounded, it wouldn't get filed at all.
posted by meowzilla at 12:31 AM on November 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
The only reason there's any press on this case is that the news thinks it sounds silly and can get a lot of eyeballs. If it was a little more grounded in fact, it wouldn't be interesting; if it was a little less grounded, it wouldn't get filed at all.
posted by meowzilla at 12:31 AM on November 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'm just sitting here marveling at the power of framing to get normally leftist or at least liberal Mefites to line up on the side of a big corporation. Even bringing up the McDonald's case!
On the other hand, it takes nothing more than inserting the word "corporation" into a sentence to drive American "leftists" into a state of total derangement where every critical faculty is suspended.
This may well be perfectly valid US legal perspective, but its also bullshit: "ready in 3.5 minutes" when it isn't true would be like a skittles packet proclaiming "a unicorn will run up to you and turn stuff into skittles!" which is not a claim the packaging makes. A concrete, quantifiable, testable claim, on the box, is not the same as some imagery in a TV ad somewhere, whatever US courts may say about the matter.
The idea of advertising puffery actually comes from the English court of appeal originally. In any case, it doesn't apply here although it would apply to a claim about unicorns.
posted by atrazine at 1:52 AM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, it takes nothing more than inserting the word "corporation" into a sentence to drive American "leftists" into a state of total derangement where every critical faculty is suspended.
This may well be perfectly valid US legal perspective, but its also bullshit: "ready in 3.5 minutes" when it isn't true would be like a skittles packet proclaiming "a unicorn will run up to you and turn stuff into skittles!" which is not a claim the packaging makes. A concrete, quantifiable, testable claim, on the box, is not the same as some imagery in a TV ad somewhere, whatever US courts may say about the matter.
The idea of advertising puffery actually comes from the English court of appeal originally. In any case, it doesn't apply here although it would apply to a claim about unicorns.
posted by atrazine at 1:52 AM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
The idea of advertising puffery actually comes from the English court of appeal originally.
Yep, US courts inherit their insanity from somewhere. They've really made it their own though.
Not that it's relevant at all - I was responding so someone purporting to be giving an analysis of what it means in a US legal context. That the US puffery bullshit has its origins in some UK court bullshit is neither here nor there.
posted by Dysk at 2:07 AM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Yep, US courts inherit their insanity from somewhere. They've really made it their own though.
Not that it's relevant at all - I was responding so someone purporting to be giving an analysis of what it means in a US legal context. That the US puffery bullshit has its origins in some UK court bullshit is neither here nor there.
posted by Dysk at 2:07 AM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Lowering the Bar notes:
“ Even dumber than the consumer-fraud claim is the one for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, which requires a product to be “fit for its ordinary purpose.” That is, the plaintiff is saying that this mac & cheese was utterly worthless for its ordinary purpose of eating because it took a little longer than expected to make. Sorry, I don’t know what your expert mac & cheese witness is telling you, but no.”
posted by Ishbadiddle at 3:35 AM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
“ Even dumber than the consumer-fraud claim is the one for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, which requires a product to be “fit for its ordinary purpose.” That is, the plaintiff is saying that this mac & cheese was utterly worthless for its ordinary purpose of eating because it took a little longer than expected to make. Sorry, I don’t know what your expert mac & cheese witness is telling you, but no.”
posted by Ishbadiddle at 3:35 AM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
The commercial will have, in tiny fine print at the bottom, a note that says the guy in the white coat holding a clipboard is an actor and not a doctor. But the reason the company chooses to put the actor in a white coat holding a clipboard is precisely because it tricks the viewer into thinking they're a credible, authoritative medical expert. That's deceptive in an intentional way and should be banned.
It's like if a kid sticks his finger a millimeter away from your face saying, "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you." We tell them to knock that crap off and threaten them with a time out. We don't shrug our shoulders and say, "Well I guess I'm powerless because after all they technically aren't touching me."
posted by AlSweigart at 5:08 AM on November 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
It's like if a kid sticks his finger a millimeter away from your face saying, "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you." We tell them to knock that crap off and threaten them with a time out. We don't shrug our shoulders and say, "Well I guess I'm powerless because after all they technically aren't touching me."
posted by AlSweigart at 5:08 AM on November 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
I have been on the corporate side of a similar issue, albeit for a medical device and for “how long to get a result”, arguing amongst ourselves and wishing for better guidance from regulations on how it should be defined. Eventually we just followed the convention of our closest competitors, thinking fda and ftc were obviously ok with it. we didn’t really understand the competitors’ logic (and thought the claim should have been longer and thus less attractive)but it would have been silly to penalize ourselves…
posted by Tandem Affinity at 5:41 AM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Tandem Affinity at 5:41 AM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
The commercial will have, in tiny fine print at the bottom, a note that says the guy in the white coat holding a clipboard is an actor and not a doctor.
No, it's an actor and not an actual doctor because it's a TV commercial, not a medical reality show. If the commercial is reasonably making medical claims, those claims are actionable without different disclaimers [these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA would be one example]. That those are able to be made and not fraud is the issue.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:47 AM on November 29, 2022
No, it's an actor and not an actual doctor because it's a TV commercial, not a medical reality show. If the commercial is reasonably making medical claims, those claims are actionable without different disclaimers [these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA would be one example]. That those are able to be made and not fraud is the issue.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:47 AM on November 29, 2022
On the other hand, it takes nothing more than inserting the word "corporation" into a sentence to drive American "leftists" into a state of total derangement where every critical faculty is suspended.
Consumer fraud has been a major part of my (public interest) legal practice for the past near decade, but you're probably right, it's the word "corporation" that's getting to me.
posted by praemunire at 8:13 AM on November 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
Consumer fraud has been a major part of my (public interest) legal practice for the past near decade, but you're probably right, it's the word "corporation" that's getting to me.
posted by praemunire at 8:13 AM on November 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
says the guy in the white coat holding a clipboard is an actor and not a doctor
A "sign up for medicare advantage now" commercial I see a lot is narrated by a puppet, with the disclaimer that it is an actor portrayal. What, that puppet doesn't actually qualify for Medicare?!?!??
posted by AzraelBrown at 8:25 AM on November 29, 2022
A "sign up for medicare advantage now" commercial I see a lot is narrated by a puppet, with the disclaimer that it is an actor portrayal. What, that puppet doesn't actually qualify for Medicare?!?!??
posted by AzraelBrown at 8:25 AM on November 29, 2022
This suit is about precision of speech. It's fair to assume that the packaging was thoroughly tested (with the intent of maximizing sales.) Kraft could have improved precision and kept the spacing with "Cooks in 3.5 minutes." They chose the misleading statement.
While the actual consumer harms of an edge case like this are insubstantial, a successful suit would serve notice to the business community that commercial speech is a regulated commercial act, what they communicate about their products matters. It's not a giant logical leap to get from "Ready in 3.5 minutes" to "Cigarettes are good for you" -- the category of acceptably misleading commercial speech acts needs to shrink.
Unless you're the shareholder of companies profiting off of dubious claims, or a capitalism collapse accelerationist, this suit a good thing.
posted by grokus at 8:25 AM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
While the actual consumer harms of an edge case like this are insubstantial, a successful suit would serve notice to the business community that commercial speech is a regulated commercial act, what they communicate about their products matters. It's not a giant logical leap to get from "Ready in 3.5 minutes" to "Cigarettes are good for you" -- the category of acceptably misleading commercial speech acts needs to shrink.
Unless you're the shareholder of companies profiting off of dubious claims, or a capitalism collapse accelerationist, this suit a good thing.
posted by grokus at 8:25 AM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
If anything, what this and similar lawsuits demonstrate is that the American "system" of "regulation by litigation" is terrible compared to just having, yanno, actual regulations. If Kraft Heinz had been required to submit the packaging claims to a regulatory agency, not only would the packaging be made to conform with the applicable standard but Kraft Heinz would be protected and the real question at issue would simply be whether the standard ought to be revised.
posted by slkinsey at 8:51 AM on November 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by slkinsey at 8:51 AM on November 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
If anything, what this and similar lawsuits demonstrate is that the American "system" of "regulation by litigation" is terrible compared to just having, yanno, actual regulations.
Regulations on how long to cook macaroni and cheese? I'm not an anti-regulations guy, but I've read enough package labeling and cooking instructions to say that most aren't run past any lawyer (I've seen misprints before) and most are probably written in manner to take up space on the box.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:04 AM on November 29, 2022
Regulations on how long to cook macaroni and cheese? I'm not an anti-regulations guy, but I've read enough package labeling and cooking instructions to say that most aren't run past any lawyer (I've seen misprints before) and most are probably written in manner to take up space on the box.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:04 AM on November 29, 2022
TBH I find this more interesting than it probably should be because I'm actually interested to see if they could prove that this is compelling advertising. How many people actually would choose a box of a cheesy pasta product based on taking 3.5 minutes vs. 4 minutes or 10? ("Takes 60 minutes!" would probably not fly off the shelves.)
Obviously Kraft felt it would convince consumers to select their product.
posted by Mitheral at 9:04 AM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Obviously Kraft felt it would convince consumers to select their product.
posted by Mitheral at 9:04 AM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'm not an anti-regulations guy, but I've read enough package labeling and cooking instructions to say that most aren't run past any lawyer (I've seen misprints before) and most are probably written in manner to take up space on the box.
Then maybe we should, I dunno, require companies to put a little more thought into the instructions they're providing consumers rather than just writing stuff to take up space on the box?
No one's proposing that there be some regulation on how long it takes to cook macaroni and cheese. What would be nice is if there was some base level of regulatory review / approval for cooking instructions, usage instructions, etc that would follow a published reasonable standard and be there to catch dumb shit so it wouldn't have to be litigated.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:11 AM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Then maybe we should, I dunno, require companies to put a little more thought into the instructions they're providing consumers rather than just writing stuff to take up space on the box?
No one's proposing that there be some regulation on how long it takes to cook macaroni and cheese. What would be nice is if there was some base level of regulatory review / approval for cooking instructions, usage instructions, etc that would follow a published reasonable standard and be there to catch dumb shit so it wouldn't have to be litigated.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:11 AM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
I don't think this one has legs given that the complete instructions are on the outside of the package. Maybe if they were on the inside.
If it gets anywhere, though, expect to see
Ready* in 3.5 minutes
*see instructions on opposite side.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:11 AM on November 29, 2022
If it gets anywhere, though, expect to see
Ready* in 3.5 minutes
*see instructions on opposite side.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:11 AM on November 29, 2022
Maybe something like this: "All times printed on the packaging must represent a reasonable estimate of the actual time needed to prepare the product for consumption"
What's so difficult about a regulation like that? Now Kraft would be protected from their competitors claiming to be ready in less than 3 minutes by cleverly redefining "ready" to some even more absurd standard.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:15 AM on November 29, 2022
What's so difficult about a regulation like that? Now Kraft would be protected from their competitors claiming to be ready in less than 3 minutes by cleverly redefining "ready" to some even more absurd standard.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:15 AM on November 29, 2022
"All times printed on the packaging must represent a reasonable estimate of the actual time needed to prepare the product for consumption"
Because lawyers determine what 'reasonable' means and we're back at square one, except that there is also a federal regulatory angle included. And an agency has to be created to review every packaging change for every product to make sure it doesn't run afoul of federal regulations.
Sorry but litigation seems best in this case, especially when it doesn't cause any actual harm.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:40 AM on November 29, 2022
Because lawyers determine what 'reasonable' means and we're back at square one, except that there is also a federal regulatory angle included. And an agency has to be created to review every packaging change for every product to make sure it doesn't run afoul of federal regulations.
Sorry but litigation seems best in this case, especially when it doesn't cause any actual harm.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:40 AM on November 29, 2022
A standard like that would have to apply to all packaged food products, including ones that call for other things to be prepared and added to them. You have to make assumptions about the standard person's ability and kitchen to come up with a "reasonable" estimates of prep time (vs cooking time). One of the most common complaints about cookbooks, but they're not subject to product-labeling law.
If the courts decide this is a viable claim, the wording will be changed to specify cooking time or there will be some kind of disclaimer and explicit reference to the actual instructions.
But even as it is, to apply a reasonability standard: is it reasonable to maintain that you were misled because you chose to read only a small portion of the exterior of the package and ignore the rest? Given that the instructions on the outside of the box make it clear that "ready" refers to the cooking time, because no reasonable person could assume the other steps could be completed outside of the flow of time.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:42 AM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
If the courts decide this is a viable claim, the wording will be changed to specify cooking time or there will be some kind of disclaimer and explicit reference to the actual instructions.
But even as it is, to apply a reasonability standard: is it reasonable to maintain that you were misled because you chose to read only a small portion of the exterior of the package and ignore the rest? Given that the instructions on the outside of the box make it clear that "ready" refers to the cooking time, because no reasonable person could assume the other steps could be completed outside of the flow of time.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:42 AM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
is it reasonable to maintain that you were misled because you chose to read only a small portion of the exterior of the package and ignore the rest?
They put specific things on the front of the package for a reason.
posted by tigrrrlily at 10:02 AM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Where's the nutrition label? The ingredients?
If the industry practice is to put the puffery on the front and the qualifications on the rear, which way does that cut?
I'm not saying I'd personally be unhappy if the case survives and gets settled. I just think the case would be a lot stronger if it was one of those packages with the instructions on the inside.
(I'm rummaging around my cabinets to compare labels, but I don't have a lot of that kind of stuff around. The front of my couscous says "cooking time." But all the Instant Oatmeal people may be in hot water.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:06 AM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
If the industry practice is to put the puffery on the front and the qualifications on the rear, which way does that cut?
I'm not saying I'd personally be unhappy if the case survives and gets settled. I just think the case would be a lot stronger if it was one of those packages with the instructions on the inside.
(I'm rummaging around my cabinets to compare labels, but I don't have a lot of that kind of stuff around. The front of my couscous says "cooking time." But all the Instant Oatmeal people may be in hot water.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:06 AM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think this case is pretty dumb and only serves as an excuse for the usual anti-regulatory chorus to disingenuously chortle about not letting the government into their macaroni and cheese.
But I also think defending Kraft by saying people should know that they can't trust what's on the packaging or that corporations have the right to make whatever claims they feel like is missing the point. They put that claim on their box and now they have to stand by it.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:13 AM on November 29, 2022
But I also think defending Kraft by saying people should know that they can't trust what's on the packaging or that corporations have the right to make whatever claims they feel like is missing the point. They put that claim on their box and now they have to stand by it.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:13 AM on November 29, 2022
If it's any help I can get onions to caramelize in the time it takes to bring a pot of water to boil and then cook frozen pirogies, by putting a lid with a small steam vent on the frying pan. The onions pre-steam on a high heat until they are translucent and then I take the lid off and they brown nicely as they change from steamed onions to fried ones.
Now I've never timed how long this takes but it seems a lot less than frying them u-nlidded, and much much less time than throwing them in a slow cooker. It means that I don't have to start my onions several minutes before I put the heat on under the pirogi water. I can start them at the same time, no added baking soda or sugar.
There is no warranty expressed or implied in this information. Probably a one off. Wouldn't work for you.
posted by Jane the Brown at 10:14 AM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Now I've never timed how long this takes but it seems a lot less than frying them u-nlidded, and much much less time than throwing them in a slow cooker. It means that I don't have to start my onions several minutes before I put the heat on under the pirogi water. I can start them at the same time, no added baking soda or sugar.
There is no warranty expressed or implied in this information. Probably a one off. Wouldn't work for you.
posted by Jane the Brown at 10:14 AM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
I grew up eating a lot of Velveeta and I still like it OK fine, but I'm really surprised to find it categorized as 'premium'.
posted by MtDewd at 11:11 AM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by MtDewd at 11:11 AM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
If it's any help I can get onions to caramelize in the time it takes to bring a pot of water to boil
Doubting this. You can get browned and glassy onions in that time if it's a big pan and not too many onions, but properly caramelized onions take a lot longer than that.
Sure, browned or sauteed onions are fine and tasty and I'm picking a nit here but I've been a line and prep cook at a place that did hand made from scratch pierogis and I used to caramelize entire 20# bags of onions all day long.
We basically always had a huge steel saute pan of caramelized onions cooking and reducing on the French Top range and even with big, hot pans it would take over an hour per pan to properly caramelize them.
Which is fine when you're working a commercial kitchen shift because all you have to do is stir and fluff them every so often so they reduce evenly without charring all while shooting down tickets and you're going to be there all day making gallons of caramelized onions anyway.
Which was also great for business because the kitchen always smelled amazing. People would walk in and lose their minds about how good it smelled. Yo, it's just onions, olive oil and salt and lots of heat and time.
posted by loquacious at 12:30 PM on November 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
Doubting this. You can get browned and glassy onions in that time if it's a big pan and not too many onions, but properly caramelized onions take a lot longer than that.
Sure, browned or sauteed onions are fine and tasty and I'm picking a nit here but I've been a line and prep cook at a place that did hand made from scratch pierogis and I used to caramelize entire 20# bags of onions all day long.
We basically always had a huge steel saute pan of caramelized onions cooking and reducing on the French Top range and even with big, hot pans it would take over an hour per pan to properly caramelize them.
Which is fine when you're working a commercial kitchen shift because all you have to do is stir and fluff them every so often so they reduce evenly without charring all while shooting down tickets and you're going to be there all day making gallons of caramelized onions anyway.
Which was also great for business because the kitchen always smelled amazing. People would walk in and lose their minds about how good it smelled. Yo, it's just onions, olive oil and salt and lots of heat and time.
posted by loquacious at 12:30 PM on November 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
Because lawyers determine what 'reasonable' means and we're back at square one, except that there is also a federal regulatory angle included. And an agency has to be created to review every packaging change for every product to make sure it doesn't run afoul of federal regulations.
This is not how regulation (generally) works. The FDA does have other regulations on product labeling (that standardized nutritional breakdown is not there out of the kindness of companies' hearts)...do you think that's what they're doing now?
As a concrete example, albeit from another field, Regulation Z governs disclosures that must be made by lenders under the Truth in Lending Act, including initial disclosures about interest rate, etc. It sets minimums for both the content of the disclosure and its presentation. Do you think the CFPB or OCC or other agency (depending on the lender's size and type of products offered) review every lender's individual promotional material? Surely not.
Agencies with supervisory authority will sit at the corresponding major lenders and do "supervision," reviewing samples of promotional material at varying intervals for compliance and notifying the lender of violations of regulation.
Agencies with enforcement authority will investigate and bring cases, if appropriate, against individual lenders whose promotional material violates regulations, either in the Title III courts or in administrative courts of their own, depending on their enabling acts and the case.
The process will vary based on agency, laws, and the demands of the particular subject matter in question, but the idea that to regulate a product or service means some government inspector is peering at an example of every iteration of a product and signing off on it is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the administrative state.
posted by praemunire at 1:05 PM on November 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
This is not how regulation (generally) works. The FDA does have other regulations on product labeling (that standardized nutritional breakdown is not there out of the kindness of companies' hearts)...do you think that's what they're doing now?
As a concrete example, albeit from another field, Regulation Z governs disclosures that must be made by lenders under the Truth in Lending Act, including initial disclosures about interest rate, etc. It sets minimums for both the content of the disclosure and its presentation. Do you think the CFPB or OCC or other agency (depending on the lender's size and type of products offered) review every lender's individual promotional material? Surely not.
Agencies with supervisory authority will sit at the corresponding major lenders and do "supervision," reviewing samples of promotional material at varying intervals for compliance and notifying the lender of violations of regulation.
Agencies with enforcement authority will investigate and bring cases, if appropriate, against individual lenders whose promotional material violates regulations, either in the Title III courts or in administrative courts of their own, depending on their enabling acts and the case.
The process will vary based on agency, laws, and the demands of the particular subject matter in question, but the idea that to regulate a product or service means some government inspector is peering at an example of every iteration of a product and signing off on it is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the administrative state.
posted by praemunire at 1:05 PM on November 29, 2022 [6 favorites]
And an agency has to be created to review every packaging change for every product to make sure it doesn't run afoul of federal regulations.
What praemunire said - this is not remotely how regulators work. We have advertising regulators in Europe, and I guess the FCC is someone does that job in the US. Do you honestly think every single advert anyone ever publishes had to be cleared by the FCC first? Regulation happens largely retroactively - you publish a deceptive ad, someone reports it to the regulator, they come after you, and you have to stop running that ad and pay a fine maybe, with worsening consequences if it's something you're making a habit of.
posted by Dysk at 1:22 PM on November 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
What praemunire said - this is not remotely how regulators work. We have advertising regulators in Europe, and I guess the FCC is someone does that job in the US. Do you honestly think every single advert anyone ever publishes had to be cleared by the FCC first? Regulation happens largely retroactively - you publish a deceptive ad, someone reports it to the regulator, they come after you, and you have to stop running that ad and pay a fine maybe, with worsening consequences if it's something you're making a habit of.
posted by Dysk at 1:22 PM on November 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
In the US we don't have that as much. The system here is less regulation and you publish a deceptive ad and you get taken to court about it. If we had a strong regulatory system, these supposedly frivolous lawsuits wouldn't happen because you'd contact the agency in charge and file a complaint from there. No court would be involved, just regulators and regulations, judges and juries looking at stuff to see if it is within bounds.
We'd save a lot of money and court time if we had stronger regulatory agencies.
posted by hippybear at 1:27 PM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
We'd save a lot of money and court time if we had stronger regulatory agencies.
posted by hippybear at 1:27 PM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
(Yeah, my understanding is that the FCC specifically does TV ads? So you have some regulation in that narrow space, at least? And you have regulators for lots of other stuff - finance, drugs, etc.)
posted by Dysk at 1:30 PM on November 29, 2022
posted by Dysk at 1:30 PM on November 29, 2022
Which was also great for business because the kitchen always smelled amazing. People would walk in and lose their minds about how good it smelled. Yo, it's just onions, olive oil and salt and lots of heat and time.
I get the same effect on a smaller scale by slicing an onion and placing it in 1 qt slow cooker.
posted by mikelieman at 2:02 PM on November 29, 2022
I get the same effect on a smaller scale by slicing an onion and placing it in 1 qt slow cooker.
posted by mikelieman at 2:02 PM on November 29, 2022
How do they come up with $5 million? The woman says she "paid more for the Product than she would have paid and would not have purchased it or paid less had she known the truth." Are they saying a certain number of consumers [like 5 million] ALSO feel they paid more than they should have for something that takes 4 and a half minutes and not three and a half?
IMO the reason this suit fails completely is that the three and a half minutes time is very clearly the cooking time. If a consumer assumed that the three and a half minutes included removing the lid and sauce pouch, adding water, and putting in the microwave, pushing buttons, taking it out and then stirring then they would have undercooked food. And then there would be another lawsuit by someone who doesn't like crunchy noodles.
I hate people, sometimes.
posted by Rashomon at 4:12 PM on November 29, 2022
IMO the reason this suit fails completely is that the three and a half minutes time is very clearly the cooking time. If a consumer assumed that the three and a half minutes included removing the lid and sauce pouch, adding water, and putting in the microwave, pushing buttons, taking it out and then stirring then they would have undercooked food. And then there would be another lawsuit by someone who doesn't like crunchy noodles.
I hate people, sometimes.
posted by Rashomon at 4:12 PM on November 29, 2022
IMO the reason this suit fails completely is that the three and a half minutes time is very clearly the cooking time.
Nothing is "very clearly" anything to everybody unless it's spelled out.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 4:17 PM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Nothing is "very clearly" anything to everybody unless it's spelled out.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 4:17 PM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
The number of people in this thread who are all "the corporation is correct and all the purchasers are stupid" is really startling to me. Corporations aren't really people -- they're businesses created to serve their customers, presumably in the best way possible. If these directions aren't serving the customers in the best way possible they should be changed.
In a different country, this would be handled through a regulatory agency. In the US, this is handled through the courts.
I understand the courts aren't efficient, but that's what we've chosen in this country. No lawsuit, no change. That applies to much larger things that have needed changed than this carton copy.
Why give corporations the power to just say what they want and make the consumers adjust to what they've written? Why give corporations that power?
I feel like a lot of the sentiments being expressed in this thread about corporations and the power they should have over their consumers is a bit, oh, I dunno, directly contradictory to other attitudes I've seen expressed about corporations and how they should just fuck off and stop abusing consumers.
Maybe this abuse feels minor, but "give an inch, give a mile" applies very enthusiastically to business/corporate law. Which this is.
What to change the situation? Establish strong regulatory agencies in the US. We don't have many, and the ones we do have are being dismantled regularly.
posted by hippybear at 4:44 PM on November 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
In a different country, this would be handled through a regulatory agency. In the US, this is handled through the courts.
I understand the courts aren't efficient, but that's what we've chosen in this country. No lawsuit, no change. That applies to much larger things that have needed changed than this carton copy.
Why give corporations the power to just say what they want and make the consumers adjust to what they've written? Why give corporations that power?
I feel like a lot of the sentiments being expressed in this thread about corporations and the power they should have over their consumers is a bit, oh, I dunno, directly contradictory to other attitudes I've seen expressed about corporations and how they should just fuck off and stop abusing consumers.
Maybe this abuse feels minor, but "give an inch, give a mile" applies very enthusiastically to business/corporate law. Which this is.
What to change the situation? Establish strong regulatory agencies in the US. We don't have many, and the ones we do have are being dismantled regularly.
posted by hippybear at 4:44 PM on November 29, 2022 [4 favorites]
so the suggestion is that somewhere in dc, there would be an office of bureaucrats whose job it will be to determine the proper preparation time for cups of mac and cheese?
posted by pyramid termite at 5:15 PM on November 29, 2022
posted by pyramid termite at 5:15 PM on November 29, 2022
I mean, yeah, if that's how you want to picture it. That's not how any other country that has an effective regulatory framework does it, but if you want to structure it that way, then yes, sure.
posted by hippybear at 5:27 PM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by hippybear at 5:27 PM on November 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
so the suggestion is that somewhere in dc, there would be an office of bureaucrats whose job it will be to determine the proper preparation time for cups of mac and cheese?
No, it'd be an office of bureaucrats size job it is to determine whether advertising copy is misleading (or otherwise illegal) or not. Like you already have an office full of people whose job it is to determine whether television ads are misleading (or otherwise illegal) or not, and like most other countries have.
Besides, you've already got (court)rooms across America where bureaucrats (called "judges") determine the prior preparation time for cups of mac and cheese (and like a billion other things, but let's use your framing - it makes about as much sense as a summary of the courts as it does of a regulator).
Are people really this allergic to the concept of regulation that they cannot conceive of anything but the least obvious, most contrived possible reading of what regulation means, of how regulators operate?
posted by Dysk at 7:20 PM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
No, it'd be an office of bureaucrats size job it is to determine whether advertising copy is misleading (or otherwise illegal) or not. Like you already have an office full of people whose job it is to determine whether television ads are misleading (or otherwise illegal) or not, and like most other countries have.
Besides, you've already got (court)rooms across America where bureaucrats (called "judges") determine the prior preparation time for cups of mac and cheese (and like a billion other things, but let's use your framing - it makes about as much sense as a summary of the courts as it does of a regulator).
Are people really this allergic to the concept of regulation that they cannot conceive of anything but the least obvious, most contrived possible reading of what regulation means, of how regulators operate?
posted by Dysk at 7:20 PM on November 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
No, it'd be an office of bureaucrats size job it is to determine whether advertising copy is misleading (or otherwise illegal) or not.
We actually do have this in the U.S. for certain types of advertising, including for food (e.g., those nutritional information boxes), so I'm really not sure why Americans are balking at the very concept.
posted by praemunire at 8:28 PM on November 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
We actually do have this in the U.S. for certain types of advertising, including for food (e.g., those nutritional information boxes), so I'm really not sure why Americans are balking at the very concept.
posted by praemunire at 8:28 PM on November 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
While we're at it, here's the FTC's public explainer of their reasonability standard for deceptive practices.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:20 AM on November 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:20 AM on November 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
$5 million is mentioned in the complaint as the amount in controversy because it is the threshold for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Any actual computation of damages would come later in the process, I think.
posted by Not A Thing at 7:27 AM on November 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Not A Thing at 7:27 AM on November 30, 2022 [1 favorite]
Correct. Also, the damages are not calculated in terms of abstract valuation of the person's time. If you paid an extra $1 for the product that claimed to cook in 3.5 minutes than you would have for the product that claimed to cook in 5 minutes, that's your damages right there.
posted by praemunire at 9:54 AM on November 30, 2022
posted by praemunire at 9:54 AM on November 30, 2022
« Older Eadburg was here (and here and here and here...) | Be water, my friend, but don't drink it all Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The article mentions that Sheehan has filed over 400 similar lawsuits against food & beverage companies in recent years; I'm curious to know his success rate. Is he just flooding the courts with bullshit?
posted by Saxon Kane at 11:40 AM on November 28, 2022 [5 favorites]