Connect

To receive new posts automatically via e-mail, enter your address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


April 5th, 2012

Siding with Hamburger and Toy Lovers, Judge Dismisses Incompetent Parents’ Class Action

In a big win for lovers of hamburgers and cheap toys, and in a stinging defeat for incompetent parents who can’t control the acquisitive impulses of their young children, a San Francisco judge yesterday thankfully disposed of another crazy California consumer class action — this one targeting McDonald’s — like a garbage bag full of stale buns.

Ginned up by a leftwing agitprop group disguising itself as the presumptively credible Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), this nuisance lawsuit was filed in December 2010 “on behalf of parents of children under age 8 who had purchased Happy Meals in the state, alleging McDonald’s advertising practices ran afoul of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising Law,” reports Law360.com.

As is typical of such lawsuits filed by would-be food police, CSPI didn’t bother to allege any specific harm done to plaintiff parents or their children.  Instead, it simply “decided that McDonald’s should not be allowed to advertise Happy Meals containing toys in the state of California.  This lawsuit is CSPI’s attempt to distort state consumer protection law beyond recognition in order to impose that decision on California parents,” McDonald’s said.

Apparently Judge Richard A. Kramer agreed, sustaining McDonald’s objections, denying plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint, and dismissing the case with prejudice.

Three cheers for Judge Kramer, along with an automatic nomination as a Points of Light candidate for the next Judicial Hellholes report coming in December. But with California teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, it’s hard to imagine that this lawsuit was allowed to eat up tax-dollars and court resources for nearly a year-and-a-half.  And considering that the pathetic plaintiffs’ essential complaint was, “We’re not capable of exercising competent control over the urges of our small children and we need the Nanny State to step in to save us,” they should have been found in contempt of court immediately and ordered to pay a stiff penalty.

Share