Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have all been socialized not to throw out food because of waste and how it looks to the starving children in poorer communities. Add into that the public health concerns with the Super size me documentary you get the perfect storm of marketing. The "value" added can be argued is your time in ordering number six instead of building a meal piece by piece
I don't buy this. If you have some leftovers, then that's fine. Some fries, or a quarter of a burger.... then you run into the stigma of overeating.
For what it's worth, Illinois is supposed to be a very Liberal state, it is my understanding that not every State allows such nonsense to be acted upon..
Actually, Illinois is a very conservative state whose government is largely controlled by one very large liberal city.
"A person commits a deceptive practice when, with intent to defraud, the person does any of the following: (1) He or she knowingly causes another, by deception. or threat, to execute a document disposing of property or a document by which a pecuniary obligation is incurred. (2) Being an officer, manager or other person."
720 ILCS 5/17-1 - Illinois General Assembly
Moderator cut: .
Why should you folks be upset at a man who is fighting an illegal action?
Last edited by toosie; 12-26-2016 at 02:35 PM..
Reason: Edited direct consumer complaint saying company action is illegal - TOS
Essentially, such a rule would require me to take a gamble in every case I had. If I failed to win or prevail because of an incompetent jury (and many exist) or a bad judge (and plenty of those exist too), my client and I would be on the hook in virtually every case for thousands of dollars in defense costs.
But if the judge/jury heard all the evidence and decided in favor of the defendant, why should the defendant "be on the hook" for those thousands of dollars? Fact is, by the time it goes to trial big expenses have accrued and *somebody* has to pay them.
Your opposition actually illustrates why it should be "loser pays". You oppose it because it would make you assume the risk of suing unsuccessfully. Yet, since you/plaintiff are the one choosing to sue it certainly should be you/plaintiff that is assuming the risk. You would think twice about suing, and would be darn sure your case had merit rather than currently being able to take a risk-free pot shot.
The current system essentially allows legal blackmail, inducing deep-pockets defendants to settle because it would be cheaper than the costs of defending successfully since they will pay their legal costs even if they win. That's just wrong.
It's not frivolous. It's deceptive advertising. And P L E N T Y of companies and corporations do it at the expense of consumers. If you bought that value meal every week for a year you gave them $21.32 additional money in their pocket. Now X that with 1 million sales. So a additional profit of .41 for every sale of that meal and advertising it as value meal when it's anything but. Advertizing a value is supposed to be a value. That means it should be cheaper than buying each item separately.
I hope the guy wins freaking BIG.
It would be deceptive advertising if the "Value" in value meal was explicitly stated as being "the price of the items in the combo vs. the price of the items purchased separately is an Extra Value." But that isn't what happened. McDonald's simply stated that the Meal was an "Extra Value." And since there is no objective measurement of what constitutes an "Extra Value," and that determination is to be made by each customer, the lawsuit is totally frivolous.
We've all purchased Value Meals. I hope it's Class Action lawsuit where all customers benefit.
Yes we have. And I would bet that a great many of us are able to do the math, and in fact DO the math, before making purchases.
I've run into this same situation in McDonald's several times. I'll ask for a Big Mac, Large Fries, and a large drink. The cashier says, "Oh, I'll give you the Big Mac Value Meal." And I tell them no, don't give me the meal, input it into the register as separate items. Most of them don't realize the savings that comes up as a result of not using the Value Meal option.
It would be deceptive advertising if the "Value" in value meal was explicitly stated as being "the price of the items in the combo vs. the price of the items purchased separately is an Extra Value." But that isn't what happened. McDonald's simply stated that the Meal was an "Extra Value." And since there is no objective measurement of what constitutes an "Extra Value," and that determination is to be made by each customer, the lawsuit is totally frivolous.
If extra value doesn't refer to price then what does it refer to? Nutritional content?
Get a tasty meal at a great price with each EXTRA VALUE MEAL®
You value good food just as much as you value a good price. Thanks to our delicious meal bundles, you can have both. A meal with quality ingredients that’s easy on the wallet? That’s a great deal.
Not only do they tout price and affordability, they imply (delicious meal bundles) that the meals are cheaper than buying the items a la carte. This franchise is practicing deceptive advertising. The man has a case.
If extra value doesn't refer to price then what does it refer to? Nutritional content?
RIF. From my post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd It would be deceptive advertising if the "Value" in value meal was explicitly stated as being "the price of the items in the combo vs. the price of the items purchased separately is an Extra Value." <<SNIP>>
Get a tasty meal at a great price with each EXTRA VALUE MEAL®
You value good food just as much as you value a good price. Thanks to our delicious meal bundles, you can have both. A meal with quality ingredients that’s easy on the wallet? That’s a great deal.
Note that I didn't say it's not about price. Note that they make no claim about it being a great price compared to something else, just that it is a good price and a good deal. It may be, or it may not be, but that is a determination for the customer to make.
Quote:
Not only do they tout price and affordability, they imply (delicious meal bundles) that the meals are cheaper than buying the items a la carte. This franchise is practicing deceptive advertising. The man has a case.
They imply no such thing. They claim that it is an Extra Value, nothing else.
I guess that if you believe that math is for suckers, then you will believe he has a case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
