• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      116 months ago

      I think that’s what the headline is trying to get you to say. And we had the same reaction with the McDonald’s case. But I hope we’re getting a bit wiser that when the story is spun this way it’s not too far out there to think that the corporation could have employed a media consultant to help spin this as “Americans sue over everything this case is dumb” when in reality there might be a good case under there that it’s easy to dismiss or ignore.

      I suspect that’s the low hanging spin for corporations who are being held accountable. “Don’t sue us, that’s dumb! Look how dumb she’s being. Entitled! Money grab!”

      • I totally agree with the notion that the article is meant to illicit that thinking as well as it being false advertising, but at the same time this particular case doesn’t have quite the same impact as the McDonald’s Coffee case. Nobody is physically being harmed by the candy not having a face. What could be deeper than simply the disappointment of not seeing that little jack-o’-lantern face when you unwrap the peanut butter cup?

    • TheOneCurly
      link
      fedilink
      English
      46 months ago

      Do you want companies to follow the law or not? Why even have truth in advertising laws if no one is going to enforce them?