Fed-up consumers are increasingly going after food companies for misleading claims
https:// www.npr.org /2023/09/20/1200417169/food-company-starbucks-misleading-claims-lawsuits Fed-up consumers are increasingly going after food companies for misleading claims
Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have no passion fruit.
That's what two consumers who have sued Starbucks for consumer protection law violations say about the coffee giant's fruit-based drinks. This week, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled their case could move forward.
U.S. District Judge John Cronan said in his opinion that "a significant portion of reasonable consumers could plausibly be misled into thinking" that Starbucks Refreshers include the fruit in their names.
It's the latest example of a recent legal trend that's seen fed-up consumers taking major food and beverage companies to court over what they say is fishy advertising.
Plaintiffs typically argue that companies are going beyond simple marketing hyperbole and misrepresenting their food and drinks — whether it's promising ingredients that aren't there or displaying promotion images that don't match the real-life items.
There has been a smorgasbord of accusations in recent years: Barilla pasta isn't made in Italy. Burger King's Whoppers are smaller than they appear. The "boneless wings" served at Buffalo Wild Wings aren't actually chicken wings. Subway's "100% tuna" sandwiches either partially or completely lack tuna. Taco Bell skimps on the fillings in its Mexican Pizza, Crunchwrap Supreme and more.
"In general, companies can say great things about their product and make any kind of opinion claims they want to make about it. They can even say it's the best in the world," said Louis Tompros, an intellectual property attorney at the law firm WilmerHale in Boston.
"Opinion claims about a product are called puffery, and they're perfectly fine under false advertising law. What false advertising law does not allow is a false factual claim," he said.
I was curious about the Buffalo Wild Wings story mentioned. Basically BDubs is calling boneless white meat chicken breast 'boneless wings'. Wing meat is more expensive and BDubs has been charging wing prices. Lawsuit makes sense.
Glad to see these lawsuits coming more frequently. We've all ordered a burger or pizza that looks nothing like the advertised image.
51We’ve all ordered a burger or pizza that looks nothing like the advertised image.
Man I remember being a kid and watching Dave Coulier's Out of Control and they had a segment on this. They showed the guy making the fake food out of polymers and plastic. The fake food for advertisements looked amazingly tasty... but they're fake. All of it is fake.
This honestly should have been something that people were up in arms about 30 years ago.
22They often have to make fake food for photo and video shoots. Real food melts under the hot lights, or doesn't retain its shape and color and consistency for the hours needed.
For Weird Al's music video I Love Rocky Road, they used mashed potatoes covered in latex paint instead of ice cream! At one point Al had to take a big bite. He said it was quite nasty and of course spit it right back out haha
9
So they're serving chicken nuggets.
10
I'm so used to thing flavored things that don't actually have thing in them because of artificial flavoring that I wouldn't have even thought of it being misleading. Like banana flavored shit usually doesn't actually have any banana in it. It's just a chemical that tastes like banana (and not even that closely!)
1Some of this is dumb (not all, just some). We should be going after the FDA for their contrived distinction on "natural/artificial" and shoddy labeling requirements. The companies are always going to do whatever nets the most profit within the rules, which often means using the cheapest or most minimal ingredients.
Let's take candy as an example. I mean, I don't expect lemon Starbursts to contain actual lemon. I think everyone is mostly fine with that being 'artificial' flavor.
But what is artificial, exactly? Chemists don't really make that distinction; just like the FDA, if a molecule is extracted from a living thing it's called a "natural product". But that doesn't actually tell you anything about the molecule itself or mean it's different than it would be if synthesized from components chemicals in any way whatsoever.
Pineapple and pear flavors are just one simple ester each, I've easily made them in a lab. Any lack of "real" taste is probably just a matter of sugar or acidity balance or missing texture. If a commercial product is made well, you'll never know the difference because it's the exact same compound whether it comes from a farm or an industrial vat. That one ester molecule is literally indistinguishable from either source (assuming it's been isolated / 'purified' sufficiently).
But strawberry and apple are much more complex fruits, with dozens or maybe hundreds of esters and other flavor compounds. Fake strawberry and apple might never be convincing. You can easily tell if those tastes are 'artificial' when they lack the nuance of having the right mix of many flavor chemicals.
Now, that claim about the 100% tuna sandwich... that's totally misleading and a good basis for a lawsuit IMO. Nobody is synthesizing a convincing fish protein at scale.
EDIT: Lots of clarifications. EDIT2: Can folks please explain when they downvote? I'm on topic and discussing nuances of the issue here.
-10