You absolutely can sue for false advertising. Also for negligence.</p>
<p>That’s not the same as suing because you ate too much of the product and got fat. By that rationale, every bakery in America, as well as ice cream shop, should be at risk for being sued because people ate their offerings and got fat. Let me tell you, I have an award-winning bakery up the block from me. It has fabulous pastries, bread and other items. It’s also comfortable and pretty. I could sit there every day of my life and eat my way through an entire box full of pastries.</p>
<p>But I don’t. Because I’m not a moron, I’m not a toddler, and I’m not a whiner.</p>
<p>Good grief, more whining from the “victim society”. No one puts a gun to anyone’s head and makes them eat fast food. Eat too much of it and don’t exercise and guess what you get fat. That goes for any other food as well. </p>
<p>Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one’s actions?</p>
<p>Here is the law is Illinois: “No person shall bring a qualified civil liability action in State court against any seller of a qualified product.” “Qualified product” means “a food (as defined in Section 201(f) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(f)).” “Qualified civil liability action” means “a civil action brought by any person against a seller of a qualified product, for damages or injunctive relief based on a claim of injury resulting from a person’s weight gain, obesity, or any health condition that is related to weight gain or obesity.”</p>
<p>I have to respectfully disagree with you. Your son is making his choice, and he should be responsible for it. He knows what he is eating is not healthy. I am pretty confident that you would not come up with any excuses if your son started skipping school to party with his friends and would put blame squarely on his shoulders. I am sure you would not try to argue that it’s the fault of the establishment/someone’s house where the party takes place. Why is it different from eating at McDonalds?</p>
<p>While I agree that being shielded might be a bit too much, but at the same time our judicial system is broken in a way that I can sue whoever I want for whatever reason (legitimate or not) and I would not pay for the plaintiff’s expenses if I lose. If we had a system where loser pays for the opposing party expenses, like they do in other countries, then I would certainly agree with your about shielding protection being too much protection. </p>
<p>By the way, when I moved to US and finally found a job, I got a little carried away about eating at McDonalds. I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread - something I could afford that tasted pretty darn good (Yes, I used to have very unsophisticated taste buds - cannot eat MKD anymomre). I gained weight in the first 6 months of eating at McDonalds every day. A lot of weight. But I learned my lesson and lost that weight. It was my lesson to learn. I have no one but myself to blame for that weight gain. It would not even occur to me to sue anyone, because I truly did not realize how bad my diet was. It should have been my responsibility to figure this out.</p>
<p>… seriously, spec? Can’t tell if joking. My partner is over 6’, eats constantly, rarely exercises, and can’t be an pound over 135. Some people are just like that.</p>
<p>My brothers are both in their late 50s, over six feet tall, responsible eaters and have never been over 150 pounds. Good metabolism and long narrow frames. My son is the same way. He is 14 and is now 5’8 and weighs 106. Good eater.</p>
<p>But his abusive mother lets him have an entire Big Mac and fries every week after his music lesson.</p>
<p>Absolutely, he is responsible. Not blaming the fast food companies at all. I’m not one in line to sue them. But do they deserve a shield? Nope. And frivolous suits can get counter suits. </p>
<p>Spectastic, we feed him. He eats. But that metabolism and the last year’s growth spurt just burns it up. That he eats 3x at least what I do and weighs just a few pound more kills me. But I can’t run the mile like he does all of the time either. Nor am I his age. The time will come, I’m sure, when he will have to watch his weight, though my side of the family is lucky in that it isn’t that big of a deal, unlike DH’s who really have to be careful.</p>
<p>But why not cigarette companies? Currently.t amjority of deseases are cause by overweight, not by smoking, there is no comparison. I suggest to have cigarette companies off the hook. They have been unfairly targetted by the people with the most loud voices. Why auto companies are not on this list? If we did not drive, then we would not be involved in auto crashes. If we did not live inside, but rather in the woods, we would not enhale the most polluted air. Instead, we are making it even more polluted by installing of air tight windows. We have to sue the builders for building homes as building homes without air pollution is not possible at all. Another factor to consider is that even very clean air is causing cancer, since oxygen is causing oxidation within our body (that is why we suppose to consume all these anti-oxidants). So, again, why is that we singled out cigarrete companies, oh, yes, now I got it, they CAN PAY, that is why, not because they caused most harm. We sue when we know we can get $$$ out. So, if your McDonald can pay, sure, why not sue them? If some fast food joint cannot pay for one reason or another, I am not sure if legal claim would be so wise.</p>
<p>It is a bit more complicated than that. I am speaking from my personal experience. My family’s business is at the conclusion of the law-suit brought to us by our ex-customer (we have a court day soon). The plaintiff already lost in conciliation court and did not like the outcome, so he tried to extort us to settle before he brings the law-suit into civil court. He knew that as a corporation we would have to hire a lawyer in the civil court (and I would not recommend anyone to represent themselves in the civil court) and he told us so. He even did cost benefit analysis to show us how much we stand to lose. He is representing himself (and doing a pretty bad job at doing so). For us it was a matter of principle so we did not buckle to his demands and he sued us in the civil court. Our insurance is covering the lawyer. I think we will have to pay the deductible.</p>
<p>The problem with counter-suing is that you open yourself to your tax returns being examined by this guy and being discussed in the court room and becoming public record. I don’t feel like doing that. And even if I win, I would not be able to collect. They guy is collecting social security. He does not have significant assets. Why bother?</p>
<p>Intellectually honest people would argue that it is either both the gun’s and hamburger’s fault or it is the person’s shooting the gun and person’s eating the hamburger fault.</p>
<p>I can have a civil discussion with someone on opposite side of the issue, but I cannot only do so if the person is consistent in their opinion.</p>
<p>We are fast becoming a nation of adult children who increasingly look to the government to save us from ourselves, or at least that’s what a certain breed of politicians and their well-meaning activist brigades and lawyers would have in mind for us. (Hey there Hizzoner up in NYC!) No need to take personal responsibility for anything. Soon we’ll all be walking around enveloped in bubble wrap lest we fall and bump our little knees, and if the bubble wrap comes undone and we do get a boo-boo they’ll also tell us who to sue.</p>
<p>"So let me get this straight, it’s not the GUN’s fault, it’s the person actually SHOOTING the gun.</p>
<p>But, it’s the HAMBURGER’s fault, not the person actually EATING the hamburger."
-Yes, you are absolutely correct. But do not forget, that it is NOT person’s fault when he smokes, it is cigarette’s fault for being smoked. It is not the driver’s fault, it is car that caused accident. And it is a cat’s fault for causing the allergy, so we have to sue the Pet Store. The same goes for schools that putting crap into children’s brains, colleges that get tuition money, but not always result in certain job…the list is very long and we can get very rich, it is time to add to cigarette companies, it is unfair that only smokers can benefit, we all want to get piece of this cake, right?</p>
<p>So for the sake of “intellectual honesty,” I am assuming that you would be in favor of legalizing marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, etc., because any harms that these drugs caused would be “not the DRUGS’ fault, but the fault of the person actually CONSUMING the drugs.”</p>
<p>What? Fast food makes you fat? I am SHOCKED. </p>
<p>On a more serious note, I am happy that all of the chains now put the nutrition info out there. I do make different choices when I see the calorie counts laid out in front of me. Love reading the EAT THIS NOT THAT books. Quite eye opening.</p>