They love to see you smile.

May 31, 2003 11:48 AM

McDonald's gets bad review, sues critic."McDonald's has labelled as "defamatory and offensive" an influential Italian food critic, who poured scorn on the quality of the fast-food giant's cuisine. The corporation has sued Edoardo Raspelli, a critic and commentator for the Italian newspaper La Stampa, after he compared its burgers to rubber and its fries to cardboard, in an article last year. McDonald's is seeking undisclosed damages, possibly as much as the 21m euros (£15m; $25m) it spent on advertising in Italy last year. " Is it really defamation if it's true? What if every restaurant that got a bad review decided to sue?
posted by kayjay (33 comments total)

I don't know if they have jury trials in Italy, or how their court system works, but how does McDonald's plan to show that their food isn't absolute crap, even to people that regularly eat at McDonald's?
posted by gyc at 11:52 AM on May 31, 2003

Egregious use of hard returns + emotional damages = payday for taco!
posted by Tacodog at 11:57 AM on May 31, 2003

"Is it really defamation if it's true" doesn't apply to opinions, does it? What makes an opinion "true" anyway?

That being said, the fries aren't too bad if you eat 'em while they're hot.
posted by alumshubby at 12:05 PM on May 31, 2003

Network associates (McAfee) tried to sue someoen over a bad review also. their case got thrown out.

I have been predicting this for years. The second one of these suits is won by a corporation, you wont see anything released by the major media outlets other than press releases. They want to protect themselves from liability. Besides, all fo the corp heads are buddy-buddy anyway, or on the same boards, why would Rupert Murdoch let newscorp say somthign bad about another company he owns. Welcome to the death of free speech.
posted by MrLint at 12:10 PM on May 31, 2003

Ben Elton said in the 80's, about Mc Donalds food:

"Why don't they just flush it down the toilet, and cut out the middle man."

Some dipshit at Mc.Dogballs, worried about their falling market share, is panicing, and behaving recklessly.
posted by Blue Stone at 12:18 PM on May 31, 2003

If I was this guy I'd back down. After all, we're just talking about his opinion here, and opinions change. In fact, every chance I got, I'd proclaim how I believe true pleasure in this life can only be obtained from a thin patty slathered in special sauce, and how Ronald McDonald's heavenly processed McNuggets prove he is the second coming of our Messiah. I think people would get the message.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 12:19 PM on May 31, 2003

If that critic is guilty of anything it's sensitive understatement. This is outrageous. What will MacDonalds have to do to make people stop eating there? Put cigarette butts in the shake-mix? Support apartheid? Only hire homosexuals and atheists? Is there anything that will drive people from that horrid greasy temple?
posted by dgaicun at 12:23 PM on May 31, 2003

"McDonald's does not support the war in Iraq"

That'd do it. In the US anyway.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:26 PM on May 31, 2003

Can anybody find the original review?
posted by son_of_minya at 12:43 PM on May 31, 2003

Boycott Italy!
posted by Postroad at 12:56 PM on May 31, 2003

Seems as though he did this review more than three years ago.
posted by dgaicun at 1:06 PM on May 31, 2003

In the late 60s, Harlan Ellison referred to McDonald's hamburgers as "toad burgers" many times. He was never sued.

However, in the 90s, two Brits were sued by McDonald's for handing out "informational flyers" which contradicted McDonald's corporate cries that their food was healthy. In the UK, the onus is on the person being sued to prove they are innocent (in libel cases). Micky D's was hoping that because of this, they would simply apoligize. Instead, they took it to court.

The case went on for years and eventually, McDonald's won. I remember hearing a snippet from the court case in which a McDonald's "Nutrition Expert" claimed that Coca Cola was healthy. When taken to task, his reason was that Coca Cola contains water and humans need water to survive.
posted by dobbs at 1:07 PM on May 31, 2003

Oh, and this is a good web site for keeping up on McDonald's' nonsense.
posted by dobbs at 1:08 PM on May 31, 2003

McDonalds does suck. Please sue me so I can claim first amendment on yo a$$.
posted by omidius at 1:26 PM on May 31, 2003

dobbs : McD won, but what a pyhrric victory considering the negative publicity they garnered. AFAIK, the two defendants still haven't paid the damages; the case continues. Being arrested then released under caution for picketing & handing out flyers outside a McD's in East London in '97 remains my proudest (only) act of civil disobedience. Long may they continue their short-sighted litigiousness; it only seems to do them harm.
posted by punilux at 2:17 PM on May 31, 2003

Now people should understand why I hoped (in vain) that McDonald's would get their ass handed to them when some Americans tried to sue McD's for making them fat. It would have been poetic justice. Sadly, the judge did not see it that way and threw the case out of court.
posted by deanc at 2:30 PM on May 31, 2003

dgaicun, your Guardian link is confusing the fuck out of me, as the Italian sources I'm finding point to a Decmber 20th, 2002 date for Raspelli's review. (All in Italian, sorry)1,2

The review was supposedly placed at the bottom of a large article outlining McDonald's financial problems and was printed in the Quotidiano Nazionale, though a search on the QN website using "McDonalds" or "Raspelli" isn't giving me anything.

Not having any personal experience in the Italian courts (nor in any court, knock on wood), I think 'defamation' has a fairly wide meaning here. An accquaintence of mine was denounced after he forgot to hold his tongue during an argument and said something to the effect of "Well it's not my fault if you can't satisfy your husband" (or was it vice versa? can't quite recall). Whatever the insult was, I do remember my jaw dropping when he told me he had been served with inital papers for a court case for an insult uttered in the heat of an argument.

I'm not sure how many court cases here get thrown out/ are resolved outside of court before they get here. I'd like to say this is a silly case that will get thrown out, but then again we're talking about the judicial system that judged that a woman wasn't raped because she had been wearing jeans and would have had to help her 'assailant' take them off.
posted by romakimmy at 2:33 PM on May 31, 2003

if you really want to see the underbelly of mcdonald's, and that lawsuit dobbs mentions, i dare you to read this book.

sorry if it's been mentioned, didn't really check all the links in the different comments. but its an eye opener, for better or worse.
posted by oog at 2:33 PM on May 31, 2003

ook. Forgot to mention to be aware of pop ups in both of those links. Sorry.
posted by romakimmy at 2:38 PM on May 31, 2003

punilux: yes, i'm aware of that. i wasn't trying to imply mcd's was in the right or that their victory was a Victory. just trying to answer gyc's question: "[H]ow does McDonald's plan to show that their food isn't absolute crap, even to people that regularly eat at McDonald's?"
posted by dobbs at 3:42 PM on May 31, 2003

Now people should understand why I hoped (in vain) that McDonald's would get their ass handed to them when some Americans tried to sue McD's for making them fat.

that's it, i'm complaining to my local prostitute for giving me herpes.

not really offtopic: you can never go wrong with mcd's cheeseburgers....mmmm.....

everything else is crap and they should burn in hell for it because they are the disease and we are the cure ;)
posted by poopy at 4:27 PM on May 31, 2003

Famous food critic says McD's food is shit. Like that's never happened before. If McDonalds would have ignored the article it would have gone away. Now it is stuck with being a huge international mega company stifling a man's opinion and wanting €21m in damages.

A key test of defamation, in the US at least, is proving the defamation did cause damage. With 300,000 Italians eating in McDonalds every day that will be hard for McDonalds to prove.

If the case isn't dismissed by the court, I think McD's will drop it since it is getting much worse PR out of this than the original 'defaming' article. But it is nice to see the US isn't the only place on the planet with frivolous lawsuits.
posted by birdherder at 4:58 PM on May 31, 2003

Well, McDonald's is a US corporation, so I think you can safely and logically assert this is another silly American lawsuit.

Americans.
posted by xmutex at 5:29 PM on May 31, 2003

I went to a McDonalds one time and got a quarter pounder. I bit into it and the meat squeeked against my teeth. Like the sound your teeth make if you grind them together. I haven't eaten there since and hope they continue to lose money from people that boycott their empty calorie bullshit.
posted by Degaz at 7:22 PM on May 31, 2003

What if every restaurant that got a bad review decided to sue?

I think this is the key point. Would this open any reviewer -- restaurant, movie, tv critic -- to prosecution for an unfavourable review?
posted by transient at 9:31 PM on May 31, 2003

25 comments and i feel that i have to stick up for mcDs, but only in a food sense.

i eat there once or twice a month and i really like the food. sure, it's cheap, sometimes i get cold fries. but, generally, i come away satisfied. so, with all the daily customers mcDs get, surely the food wouldn't be that bad?

i like to compare mcDs to mainstream music. it's bland and obvious, but a hellavu lot of people consume it daily.
posted by triv at 3:32 AM on June 1, 2003

Mickey D's is a lot lot Gallo or Sebastiani Bros wine: It's never going to be five-star outstanding, but it'll always be just barely satisfying, in a boring sort of way.

I have to go there with my son when he wears down my resistance about once a week. I recommend the Big & Tasty and a large strawberry shake.
posted by alumshubby at 8:14 AM on June 1, 2003

so, with all the daily customers mcDs get, surely the food wouldn't be that bad?

Every so often, I go to McDonalds. Usually when I'm in a rush, occasionally when I have a craving. I can handle the desserts and fries ok, but any time that I order a sandwich, I feel completely sick to my stomach by the time I'm done. (The same holds true for Taco Bell.) You'd think I'd learn, given that I always spend the rest of the day with a greasy, queasy feeling. I can't imagine eating there everyday.

Of course, I also know people who smoke on a daily basis, or who live on Mt. Dew and Cheetos, so surely those things can't be that bad, either.
posted by kayjay at 9:19 AM on June 1, 2003

The Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) is a state-level law proposed to 'unify' how states handle software licenses, online transactions, and other miscellaneous computer-related stuff.

One of the provisions requires a publisher's permission to publish a review or benchmark of a piece of software.

The UCITA has been passed in Maryland and Virginia. Happily, most states didn't fall for this piece of drek. But it's not like McD's is unique in wanting protection from the bad opinions of people.

"Welcome to the United Corporations of America. Please select your opinions from the menu and drive forward to the first window, where you will be tagged and charged..."
posted by Cerebus at 9:40 AM on June 1, 2003

Mickey D's is a lot lot Gallo or Sebastiani Bros wine: It's never going to be five-star outstanding, but it'll always be just barely satisfying, in a boring sort of way.

The difference is that McDonalds's success relies heavily on consistency of its product the way no winery can (despite your examples that market to a certain palate, shall we say). I drink and taste a lot of wine and rarely spend more than $30/bottle retail.. I'm not familiar with Seb.Bros, but if you dig into Gallo reserve, there are some great (!) values out there for $10-15.
These wineries, no matter how you may feel about them, also bring wine to American tables that may otherwise not drink/serve wine much. Sometimes they act as springboards for consumers to sample, try and buy other wines. I don't know how often people eat at McDonalds and are inspired to further their pursuit of decent or locally grown food, etc...
posted by G_Ask at 5:00 PM on June 1, 2003

One of the provisions requires a publisher's permission to publish a review or benchmark of a piece of software.

Perhaps, in the future, a negative review will then consist of a refusal to review the product/service/etc. "I shall not be reviewing X" will be code for "this sucks, avoid at all cost"
posted by kayjay at 5:40 PM on June 1, 2003

Actually, Gallo makes some good stuff, too. I had an excellent bottle of ~$17 cab just recently that was excellent and non-boring. Not much in the way of boutique winery cachet, though.
posted by shoos at 7:31 PM on June 1, 2003

What a cheeky bastard! To actually review a McD's! The nerve! We'll show him!!

That is actually funny of Mr. Raspelli to even consider a review. However, he does have a point. The food sucks, if you can even call it food and he wants to bring the attention of the public to think twice about "dining at McD's".

Oh sure, the service is good, if you walk up to the counter, after that, the food is well....gaseous.

A food/restaurant critic in Toronto is always a pleasure to read. Joanne Kates tells it how it is. She studied culinary arts and knows what she speaks of.

Style over substance shouldn't be winning over converts. Seems to work in many cases.

This lawsuit bodes poorly for critical thinking over bags of money to fight a lost cause. Hope it gets thrown out of court.

Anyone for a McMadCow Burger with cheese? Bag 'o wine with that M'sieur?

Merci. Non.
posted by alicesshoe at 8:07 PM on June 1, 2003