McDONALD'S

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
 

A commercial for a McDonald's steak sandwich was banned by television watchdogs for being misleading. The sandwich looked better in the advert than in real life, said the Independent Television Commission (ITC), after investigating several customer complaints. ITC staff tested several sandwiches and ruled that they contained less filling than the one in the commercial. The fast food chain said it was "disappointed" with the ITC's decision. McDonald's' advert agency said it had followed the food giant's recipe guidelines, but when ITC staff bought the product for themselves they found the quantity of the toppings varied considerably. The advertisement, for McDonald's Steak Premiere, described it as "steak in ciabatta with chargrilled peppers, onions and a black pepper mayo".

However, four viewers complained that in their experience the product was flat and not as well filled with peppers and onions as the one in the commercial. McDonald's later admitted that a proportion of the toppings had been moved to the edge of the bun for filming. The ITC said this gave a misleading impression and ordered the fast food chain not to show the commercial again. In a statement, McDonald's said: "In accordance with industry practice, when making this advert we followed the same guidelines, used the same equipment and used the same amount of ingredients as used by our restaurants every day when serving customers. We are pleased that these facts were accepted by the ITC but are disappointed with the ITC's overall decision. As Steak Premiere was only available in restaurants during the months of October 2002 through to January 2003, we consider the matter now closed."

An Illinois woman sued a McDonald's franchise owner, Wal-Mart, a cup maker and her own mother over spilled coffee she said was too hot. Teresa Reed claimed in the £305,000 lawsuit against Short Enterprises, owner of the McDonald's in Murphysboro, that a cup of coffee she bought at the drive-through in 1998 spilled and scalded her ankle, allegedly leaving a permanent scar. Ms Reed said the coffee, which the suit alleged was "served at a temperature too hot for consumption and hot enough to scald the human body," spilled and burned her after she placed it in a cup holder in her mother's car.

The cup maker Cobb Manufacturing and Wal-Mart, the manufacturer of the cup holder, were also named in the suit. Ms Reed's mother was also accused of negligence, saying Carol Sanders "owed a duty of care for the safety of others riding in her vehicle." A jury awarded Stella Liebeck of New Mexico £2 million in 1994 after she was burned by spilt McDonald's coffee two years earlier. A judge later reduced the punitive damages to £330,000, and she eventually settled for an undisclosed sum that was under £420,000.

Things are different in the UK however.

Thirty-six victims of scalding were been told they cannot sue McDonald's over accidents caused by hot drinks. High Court judge Mr Justice Field had been asked to make a decision over whether the customers could take action against the chain. The judge said that people who buy coffee or tea know it is hot and can cause "a nasty scalding injury if it spilled on someone". He said there was no duty on McDonald's to warn customers about the risk. Timothy Horlick QC, representing the claimants, had alleged that McDonald's was serving drinks at too high a temperature, that it should have sold drinks that were cooler, that its cups were inadequate and that the firm did not warn customers of the risks.

The judge said that if McDonald's could not serve drinks at the temperatures they did, they would have to serve them at a temperature that would not cause scalding and this would not be acceptable to the public. He said, "Although McDonald's owe a duty of care to those who visit their restaurants to guard against injury, that duty is not such that they should have refrained from serving hot drinks at all." Of the insulated cups which did not feel hot to the touch, he said, "I am quite satisfied that McDonald's were entitled to assume that the consumer would know that the drink was hot and there are numerous commonplace ways of speeding up cooling such as stirring and blowing."

He added, "The risk that drinks would be dropped or violently knocked over and cause scalding injuries could not be avoided if the facility the public wanted was going to be made available. The safety of hot drinks at the chain did meet the general expectations of the public." He rejected all the preliminary issues which means the claimants cannot sue for damages for personal injury.