We are generally hesitant to post about some of the ridiculous industry-bashing that many anti-science, anti-capitalism groups spout -- for fear of spreading their misguided word one inch farther. But sometimes, when litigation is threatened, you just have to stop biting your tongue.
The self-proclaimed Center for Science in the Public Interest has apparently threatened to sue McDonald’s if the popular food company does not stop marketing toys with its Happy Meals. The claim is that the toys included in the meals instill unhealthy eating habits in children. CSPI sent a letter to McDonald's last week demanding that the company immediately pull toys from its Happy Meal children’s meals. By advertising that Happy Meals include toys, McDonald’s somehow supposedly unfairly and deceptively markets directly to children. Advertising a small toy in a Happy Meal box is supposedly deceptive because children under the age of 8 are not advanced enough to understand the "intent" of the marketing.
Well, how wrong can one misguided group be? Let's count the ways. Last time we checked, in a democracy with a free market economy, product sellers were free to make their products attractive to consumers, free to advertise them, and free to market their wares with accurate and truthful statements. A Happy Meal is advertised to contain a toy. It does. It has a meal, just like promised. And as a dad, I can attest to the fact the box meal does make kids happy. Where is the deception? There is none. The group cites a variety of state consumer fraud acts in the letter, but not a single case supporting its preposterous legal theories -- because there aren't any. For example, the group cites the Massachusetts law (93A), but the recent case Rule v. Ford Dodge Animal Health Inc., 2010 WL 2179794 (1st Cir. 6/2/10), makes clear that there is no valid consumer claim when the customer does not suffer a traditional and real economic injury.
Next, last time we checked, very few small children were behind the wheel in the drive-through line. Parents can decide what their kids eat. And parents can still say "no" when little Johnny or Suzie wants burgers and fries too often. When did we cross the line from parents raising their kids to the best of their ability, to the government (regulators or the courts through a suit) determining how kids should be raised, down to what they can eat and whether they get a small toy to play with after dinner? According to CSPI, many children will pester their parents to take them to McDonald’s. So what? Kids pester; that's what they do. Parents say "no." That's what they do. Problem solved -- without a class action.
Next, the rabble rousers complain that the Happy Meals are slightly higher in calories than the group thinks is reasonable. Thank goodness for the self-appointed calorie police who think that the best way to tackle the issue of weight in this country is to have the courts force all food companies to make food that looks and tastes like cardboard and is boring, anything but "happy." How about we get kids to put down the remote control and exercise and play sports more? Problem solved -- without the litigation.
But, cries the group, the toys build brand loyalty and send the customers back again in the future. Since when was it an actionable wrong to actually provide your customers with a product they like so much they come back and buy it again in the future? What kind of economy does this group want?
CSPI needs to worry more about junk science than junk food. In fact, in my area, McDonald's heavily advertises the four-piece Chicken McNuggets Happy Meal, which includes Apple Dippers, low-fat caramel dip and 1 percent low-fat white milk. Maybe the issue is that the parents of the CSPI members never told them "no." Not to worry, they will soon hear it from the courts if they pursue this threatened litigation.