Cases brought against McDonald's

[edit] H.R. Pufnstuf / McDonaldland

In 1973, Sid and Marty Krofft, the creators of H.R. Pufnstuf , successfully sued McDonald's,
arguing that the entire McDonaldland premise was essentially a ripoff of their television show. In
specific, the Kroffts claimed that the character Mayor McCheese was a direct copy of their
character, "H.R. Pufnstuf" (being a mayor himself). McDonald's initially was ordered to pay
$50,000. The case was later remanded as to damages, and McDonald's was ordered to pay the
Kroffts more than $1 million.

McDonaldland itself, as it was depicted in the commercials, was a magical place where plants,
foods, and inanimate objects were living, speaking characters. In addition to being the home to
Ronald and the other core characters, McDonaldland boasted "Thick shake volcanoes",
anthropomorphized "Apple pie trees", "The Hamburger Patch" (where McDonald's hamburgers
grew out of the ground like plants), "Filet-O-Fish Lake", and many other fanciful features based
around various McDonald's menu items. In the commercials, the various beings are played by
puppets or costumed performers, very similar to the popular H.R. Pufnstuf program.

McDonald's had originally hoped the Kroffts would agree to license their characters for
commercial promotions. When they declined, McDonaldland was created, purposely based on
the H.R. Pufnstuf show in an attempt to duplicate the appeal.

After the lawsuit, the concept of the "magical place" was all but phased out of the commercials,
as were many of the original characters. Those that remained would be Ronald, Grimace, The
Hamburglar, and the Fry Kids.

[edit] McSleep (Quality Inns International)

In 1988 Quality Inns was planning to open a new chain of economy hotels under the name
"McSleep." After McDonald's demanded that Quality Inns not use the name because it infringed,
the hotel company filed a suit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that "McSleep" did
not infringe. McDonald's counterclaimed, alleging trademark infringement and unfair
competition. Eventually, McDonald's prevailed. The court's opinion noted that the prefix "Mc"
added to a generic word has acquired secondary meaning, so that in the eyes of the public it
means McDonalds, and therefore the name "McSleep" would infringe on McDonald's
trademarks. Quality Inns Int'l v. McDonald's Corp. 695 F. Supp. 198 (D. Md. 1988).PDF

[edit] Viz top tips (UK)

In 1996, British adult comic Viz accused McDonald's of plagiarising the name and format of its
longstanding Top Tips feature, in which readers offer sarcastic tips. McDonald's had created an
advertising campaign of the same name, which showcased the Top Tips (and then suggested the
money-saving alternative - going to McDonald's). Some of the similarities were almost word-for-
word:
 "Save a fortune on laundry bills. Give your dirty shirts to Oxfam. They will wash and
iron them, and then you can buy them back for 50p." – Viz Top Tip, published May
1989.
"Save a fortune on laundry bills. Give your dirty shirts to a second-hand shop. They will
wash and iron them, and then you can buy them back for 50p." – McDonalds advert,
1996

The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, which was donated to the charity
appeal Comic Relief. However, many Viz readers believed that the comic had given permission
for their use, leading to Top Tips submissions such as: "Geordie magazine editors. Continue
paying your mortgage and buying expensive train sets ... by simply licensing the Top Tips
concept to a multinational burger corporation."[18]

[edit] Beef french fries

Lawsuits were brought against the McDonald's Corporation for including beef in its french fries
despite claims that those french fries were vegetarian (Block vs. McDonald's Corp., Sharma vs.
McDonald's Corp., Bansal v. McDonald's Corp., Zimmerman v. McDonald's Corp.) PDF was
brought against McDonald's for claiming that its french fries were vegetarian in the early 1990s,
when in fact beef flavoring was added to the fries during the production phase. The case
revolved around a 1990 McDonald’s press release stating that the company's french fries will be
cooked in 100% vegetable oil and a 1993 letter to a customer that claims their french fries are
vegetarian [1]. The lawsuits ended in 2002 when McDonald's announced it would issue another
apology and pay 10 million dollars to vegetarians and religious groups. Subsequent oversight by
the courts was required to ensure that the money that was paid by McDonald's: "to use the funds
for programs serving the interests of people following vegetarian dietary practices in the broadest
sense." There was some controversy in this ruling, as it benefited non-vegetarian groups such as
Muslims, who cannot eat McDonald's fries as they are non-halal, and research institutions that
research vegetarian diets but do not benefit vegetarians. In 2005, the appeal filed by vegetarians
against the list of recipients in this case was denied, and the recipients of the 10 million dollars
chosen by McDonald's was upheld.

Further ingredient related lawsuits have been brought against McDonald's in 2006, as
McDonald's had placed its french fries on its website as gluten-free. After they changed the
recipe, it is claimed that children suffered severe intestinal damage as a result of McDonald's
unpublicized changes to its recipe. More recently, McDonald's has included a more complete
ingredient list for its french fries. Over 20 lawsuits have been brought against McDonald's
regarding this issue, and the McDonald's Corporation has attempted to consolidate these
lawsuits.

[edit] Labour
[edit] Coalition of Immokalee workers (US)

In March 2001, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, a group of South Florida farmworkers,
began a campaign demanding better wages for the people who pick the tomatoes used by
McDonald's and other fast food companies.[19] McDonald's was the second target after the group
succeeded against Taco Bell.[20]

McDonald's Corporation has claimed that their SAFE (Socially Accountable Farm Employer)
program is equal to or superior to the agreement between the CIW and Taco Bell. SAFE was
initially represented, in November 2005, by CBR Public Relations Firm. According to their
website, CBR-PR has "in-depth" experience handling "activist response management." SAFE,
unlike the Taco Bell agreement, does not include a wage increase, worker participation, worker
support or basic buying transparency. The program is run by the Florida Fruit and Beverage
Association and the Redlands Christian Migrant Association, a childcare provider with no
experience in labor issues. As the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association represents farmers
who have an interest in reducing costs, often at the expense of farmworkers, this represents a
conflict of interests. Under SAFE, farmworkers themselves continue to be excluded from
monitoring the conditions under which they work.[citation needed]

According to the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Human Rights, "By partnering with SAFE and
embracing its weak expectations — which do not include even such fundamental labor standards
such as the right to overtime pay and freedom of association — McDonald's is setting the bar
even lower for its American agricultural producers than it does for its suppliers in communist
China."[21]

[edit] Strip-Search Suit (US)

Main article: Strip search prank call scam

[edit] Advertising
[edit] Fries advertisement (UK)

In 2003, a ruling by the UK Advertising Standards Authority determined that the corporation had
acted in breach of the codes of practice in describing how its french fries were prepared.[22] A
McDonald's print ad stated that "after selecting certain potatoes" "we peel them, slice them, fry
them and that's it." It showed a picture of a potato in a McDonald's fries box. In fact the product
was sliced, pre-fried, sometimes had dextrose added, was then frozen, shipped, and re-fried and
then had salt added.

[edit] "McMatch and Win Monopoly" Promotion (Australia)

In 2001, 34 claimants (representing some 7,000 claimants)[23] failed in a class action against
McDonald's for false and misleading conduct arising from the "McMatch & Win Monopoly"
promotion before Justice John Dowsett of the Federal Court of Australia.[24] The claimants had
attempted to claim prizes from the 1999 promotion using game tokens from the 1998 promotion,
arguing unsuccessfully that that remaining 1998 tokens may have been distributed accidentally
by McDonald's in 1999.
[edit] Health and safety
[edit] The McDonald's coffee case (US)

Main article: Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

In 1992, Stella Liabeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, sued
McDonald's after she suffered third-degree burns after she spilled hot coffee that she ordered at
one of the company's drive-thrus.[25] a.k.a. the "McDonald's coffee case", is a well-known
product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a
jury awarded $2.9 million to a woman who burned herself with hot coffee. The trial judge
reduced the total award to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an
appeal was decided. The case entered popular understanding as an example of frivolous
litigation;[26] ABC News calls the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits."[27] Trial-lawyer
groups such as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and other opponents of tort reform
sometimes argue that the suit was justified because of the extent of Liebeck's injuries.[28]

[edit] The Fast Food Obesity Case (US)

In 2002 a Bronx man named Caesar Barber announced through his lawyer, Samuel Hirsch, that
he intended to sue a number of fast food restaurant chains, including McDonald's, for making
him obese and causing health problems.[29] The case never went to court.