Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Fast-food giant McDonald’s will have to continue defending a lawsuit claiming it engaged in deceptive advertising about the nutritional benefits of its products. Southern District Judge Robert Sweet has refused to grant the company’s latest motion to dismiss, saying that parents of children who are obese and suffered other health problems — allegedly because of McDonald’s food — provided enough specific examples of allegedly misleading advertising to allow the suit to go forward. Judge Sweet’s ruling in Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp. 02 Civ. 7821, was the latest in a series of decisions in the 4-year-old case. The decision will be published Friday. The suit has drawn national attention, with McDonald’s and critics of over-zealous plaintiffs’ lawyers charging it was the most recent example of Americans blaming others for their own bad habits. Parents of minors Ashley Pelman and Israel Bradley, who dined regularly at the fast-food chain, claimed McDonald’s was peddling products that led to obesity, diabetes and “bad” cholesterol that could increase the chance of heart disease. In a February 2003 ruling dismissing the case, Judge Sweet asked: “Where should the line be drawn between an individual’s own responsibility to take care of herself and society’s responsibility to ensure others shield her? The complaint fails to allege the McDonald’s products consumed by the plaintiffs were dangerous in any way other than that which was open and obvious to a reasonable consumer.” Judge Sweet gave the plaintiffs leave to amend, but then dismissed their amended complaint. A portion of the lawsuit was restored by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — claims that McDonald’s, between 1987 and 2002, engaged in a scheme of deceptive advertising under New York General Business Law �349. The first count claimed McDonald’s ads created the false impression its food was nutritionally beneficial and part of a healthy lifestyle if consumed daily. A second count alleged the failure to disclose the use of additives that made the food less healthy than represented. A third count alleged that McDonald’s acted deceptively when it said it would provide nutritional information to its New York customers. Receiving the case on remand, Judge Sweet directed the plaintiffs to state specifically which advertisements they were referring to and why they were “materially deceptive.” The judge also asked the plaintiffs to explain how they “were aware of the acts alleged to be misleading” and to offer a brief description of their injuries due to McDonald’s’ conduct. While McDonald’s claimed the plaintiffs failed on all counts, Judge Sweet disagreed. He said the plaintiffs adequately outlined their exposure to certain ads and statements by McDonald’s. “Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that their beliefs were affected through their contact and interaction with third-parties who were exposed to and influenced by McDonald’s allegedly misleading advertisements,” Judge Sweet said. “This information is enough to allow defendant to interpose a response, and the defendant’s motion to strike is denied.” Judge Sweet ruled that the plaintiffs “sufficiently described” the injuries that each had allegedly suffered — “physical injuries of weight gain, obesity, hypertension, and elevated levels of LDL cholesterol; 2) false beliefs as to the nutritional contents and effects of defendant’s foods; and 3) economic losses in the form of defendant’s products that they would not have purchased but for McDonald’s conduct.” Judge Sweet then limited the plaintiffs to 40 specific allegedly deceptive ads identified in their second amended complaint, but gave them leave to amend and add additional advertisements for “good cause shown.” Saying McDonald’s had enough information to give an answer, he ordered the company to answer the second amended complaint within 30 days. Samuel Hirsch represented the plaintiffs. Thomas J. Quigley of Winston & Strawn represented McDonald’s Corp. Mark Hamblett can be reached at [email protected]

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.