Three men suing Chipotle because they felt too full...
Options
Replies
-
Kinda reminds me of the woman who sued McDonald's because she spilled hot coffee on her lap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
I've actually read that judgment. It's been simplified into a joke, but the actual claim was legit. The temperature of the coffee was far, far beyond safe levels and when she spilled it in her lap she ended up needing multiple skin grafts and years of treatment.
I recall that there were extenuating factors as well, such as that McDonalds outlet having multiple complaints in the preceding weeks that the coffee was ruinously hot, and people had been burned, but they'd failed to do anything.
The payout the woman got included punitive damages, which were awarded by the jury. Her claim had simply been for medical costs, which were in the tens of thousands. McDonalds had refused to make a decent settlement offer (they wouldn't offer more than $800 for her medical care).
It does get used as the poster child for frivolous litigation, but in actual fact, its an example of why torts law, and negligence actions exist.
The Chipotle one... that's up there with the "My Subway is only 11.5" case.12 -
For those who have never visited Chipotle: You choose format of the meal (salad, burrito, tacos, etc.) and then you choose which meat to put into it, then you choose other toppings (beans, rice, sour cream, cheese, guacamole, salsa, etc.). My guess is that the meat itself on that sign was supposed to be 300 calories. Then you have to add calories for the salad, burrito shell, taco shell, or whatever you got it put into. Then you also have to add calories for everything else you get - black beans will have different calories than pinto beans, rice, etc.
Here is a photo I found online that looks similar to what I recall seeing on some menu boards:
Chances are good that this guy didn't understand that he has to add calories for the other components of the burrito made to his order.
ETA: The range on this sign is so big because it varies based on the lowest calorie meat and minimal additional toppings vs. getting the highest calorie meat and everything else on it.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »For those who have never visited Chipotle: You choose format of the meal (salad, burrito, tacos, etc.) and then you choose which meat to put into it, then you choose other toppings (beans, rice, sour cream, cheese, guacamole, salsa, etc.). My guess is that the meat itself on that sign was supposed to be 300 calories. Then you have to add calories for the salad, burrito shell, taco shell, or whatever you got it put into. Then you also have to add calories for everything else you get - black beans will have different calories than pinto beans, rice, etc.
Here is a photo I found online that looks similar to what I recall seeing on some menu boards:
Chances are good that this guy didn't understand that he has to add calories for the other components of the burrito made to his order.
ETA: The range on this sign is so big because it varies based on the lowest calorie meat and minimal additional toppings vs. getting the highest calorie meat and everything else on it.
There is a picture in my OP that shows the in store menu showing a burrito with 300 Calories on the bottom there is no range.
I've never seen only one ingredient listed in a calorie count on a menu until I read this article.
The lawsuit includes the website so that may have been changed already I'm not positive about that though.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »For those who have never visited Chipotle: You choose format of the meal (salad, burrito, tacos, etc.) and then you choose which meat to put into it, then you choose other toppings (beans, rice, sour cream, cheese, guacamole, salsa, etc.). My guess is that the meat itself on that sign was supposed to be 300 calories. Then you have to add calories for the salad, burrito shell, taco shell, or whatever you got it put into. Then you also have to add calories for everything else you get - black beans will have different calories than pinto beans, rice, etc.
Here is a photo I found online that looks similar to what I recall seeing on some menu boards:
Chances are good that this guy didn't understand that he has to add calories for the other components of the burrito made to his order.
ETA: The range on this sign is so big because it varies based on the lowest calorie meat and minimal additional toppings vs. getting the highest calorie meat and everything else on it.
There is a picture in my OP that shows the in store menu showing a burrito with 300 Calories on the bottom there is no range.
I've never seen only one ingredient listed in a calorie count on a menu until I read this article.
The lawsuit includes the website so that may have been changed already I'm not positive about that though.
You might not have seen only 1 ingredient on the menu if you have never visited a "make to order" place or such a place without calories on the menu board.
Here is a more full image of a Chipotle menu with *gasp* calories next to each item that can be included.
0 -
Ok just speaking of Chipotle and THIS lawsuit - based on 3 separate stores that show 300 calories under a description of a Chroizo burrito (in my OP the link contains the picture I can't copy it for some reason) containing tortilla, beans, chorizo, rice and cheese. There is no range of calories nor options.
I'm not sure what you are showing me? Is this in one of the 3 stores mentioned in the lawsuit? Are you saying in the 3 stores in the lawsuit in addition to the one picture I mention that the menu boards you are showing me are also present?0 -
Ok just speaking of Chipotle and THIS lawsuit - based on 3 separate stores that show 300 calories under a description of a Chroizo burrito (in my OP the link contains the picture I can't copy it for some reason) containing tortilla, beans, chorizo, rice and cheese. There is no range of calories nor options.
I'm not sure what you are showing me? Is this in one of the 3 stores mentioned in the lawsuit? Are you saying in the 3 stores in the lawsuit in addition to the one picture I mention that the menu boards you are showing me are also present?
I can't speak for whoever posted the picture but every Chipotle I've been in looks identical to the photo with the calorie counts listed after each item. I am in WA though where calorie counts are required to be on the menu.1 -
Ok just speaking of Chipotle and THIS lawsuit - based on 3 separate stores that show 300 calories under a description of a Chroizo burrito (in my OP the link contains the picture I can't copy it for some reason) containing tortilla, beans, chorizo, rice and cheese. There is no range of calories nor options.
I'm not sure what you are showing me? Is this in one of the 3 stores mentioned in the lawsuit? Are you saying in the 3 stores in the lawsuit in addition to the one picture I mention that the menu boards you are showing me are also present?
I'm not sure what the full menu board in those specific stores looks like now or at the time. I agree that the image in your news story is easily misunderstood. It is obvious to most of us that the 300 calories shown covers the meat and probably burrito, but not the extras and additives.
The images I'm showing are what I normally see in Chipotles (I have not visited every single Chipotle in the U.S.). To paint a picture of Chipotle as being intentionally misleading on nutrition facts based off of the single pane of the menu board at 3 specific Chipotle stores without considering the level of accurate calories shown otherwise makes me think there must be a deeper reason you to want to break out the pitchforks and torches.0 -
Me bring out pitchforks? Wow just wow.
I was trying to understand if the menu boards you are showing me are ALSO in these 3 stores in the lawsuit IN ADDITION to the one pictured in the article. If so then I was going to say ok this lawsuit is silly. That's the only clarification I was looking for.
Otherwise yes I think its a bit irresponsible to list only one ingredients calories. Thats all I'm after, then you started showing me other menu boards so I was trying to understand if they are also in the stores.
I think you and I agree that the boards you are showing seems to make this lawsuit silly. But I don't think they were in the stores mentioned in the lawsuit so I can see why one MAY sue.
2 -
Me bring out pitchforks? Wow just wow.
I was trying to understand if the menu boards you are showing me are ALSO in these 3 stores in the lawsuit IN ADDITION to the one pictured in the article. If so then I was going to say ok this lawsuit is silly. That's the only clarification I was looking for.
Otherwise yes I think its a bit irresponsible to list only one ingredients calories. Thats all I'm after, then you started showing me other menu boards so I was trying to understand if they are also in the stores.
I think you and I agree that the boards you are showing seems to make this lawsuit silly. But I don't think they were in the stores mentioned in the lawsuit so I can see why one MAY sue.
The picture in your article looks like it is only 1 single pane. Unless that Chipotle location just happened to sell only 1 single item, it isn't the full menu board.1 -
I'm pretty sure its not the only one since they have many choices. It would be interesting to see the rest of the menu boards in those stores to see if the lawsuit is frivolous.
ETA - a representative tweeted....
"I'm sorry for the confusion, but we'll make things more clear next time. The 300 calories is for the chorizo [alone]."0 -
on the Chorizo burrito that was listed at 300 calories. Turns out the burrito is 3 to 4 times that amount.
http://laist.com/2016/11/19/make_chipotle_healthy_again.php
I bet any mfper could look at the ingredients alone and know that it was more than 300 calories - cheese, flour tortilla, white rice, chorizo, black beans and salsa.
ETA - not to mention the size of that burrito. My little low calorie burrito is 300 calories plus and its half that size.
I don't understand how a lawyer would have even approved of filing this claim (unless they filed it on their own). I realize that in a way it's false advertising - you're saying that something has a certain amount of calories in it but it doesn't, and companies shouldn't be allowed to do that and I agree that they should stop - but I just can't grasp what kind of damages they think they're looking at. They spent minimal money on purchasing this burrito - and now they're spent more filing the claim.
Even if I were to have eaten that thing, unless I barely ate anything else for that day, of course it would blow my one day of calories - but it wouldn't really cause me any damage that I can put into a monetary form. Also, while I realize that Americans have a bit of a different judicial system than in Canada, I assume a judge would consider what a "reasonable" person would have assumed in that situation and no reasonable person would look at that monstrosity and think that it has 300 calories in it.
For this exact reason, this type of lawsuit would typically be filed with a request for the court to certify a "class" of similarly situated injured plaintiffs (in this case, everybody who's ever ordered a chorizo burrito). Assuming the court approves the class, and the plaintiffs either win or negotiate a settlement with the corporation, whatever compensation is decided on is divided among the members of the class, many or most of whom don't even know they're part of the class. The administrators of the compensation fund have to try to reach the injured parties (in this case, I would think through ads, but it's possible they'd reach out to individuals through Chipotle's records of reward card holders or credit/debit card purchasers). In my experience, the compensation offered to class members is most often an insulting offer of a discount on more goods and service from the same company that just cheated you. The biggest benefits in class actions go to the plaintiff lawyers who brought the case, and, possibly, to consumers in some possible deterrent to future bad actions by companies.2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »on the Chorizo burrito that was listed at 300 calories. Turns out the burrito is 3 to 4 times that amount.
http://laist.com/2016/11/19/make_chipotle_healthy_again.php
I bet any mfper could look at the ingredients alone and know that it was more than 300 calories - cheese, flour tortilla, white rice, chorizo, black beans and salsa.
ETA - not to mention the size of that burrito. My little low calorie burrito is 300 calories plus and its half that size.
I don't understand how a lawyer would have even approved of filing this claim (unless they filed it on their own). I realize that in a way it's false advertising - you're saying that something has a certain amount of calories in it but it doesn't, and companies shouldn't be allowed to do that and I agree that they should stop - but I just can't grasp what kind of damages they think they're looking at. They spent minimal money on purchasing this burrito - and now they're spent more filing the claim.
Even if I were to have eaten that thing, unless I barely ate anything else for that day, of course it would blow my one day of calories - but it wouldn't really cause me any damage that I can put into a monetary form. Also, while I realize that Americans have a bit of a different judicial system than in Canada, I assume a judge would consider what a "reasonable" person would have assumed in that situation and no reasonable person would look at that monstrosity and think that it has 300 calories in it.
For this exact reason, this type of lawsuit would typically be filed with a request for the court to certify a "class" of similarly situated injured plaintiffs (in this case, everybody who's ever ordered a chorizo burrito). Assuming the court approves the class, and the plaintiffs either win or negotiate a settlement with the corporation, whatever compensation is decided on is divided among the members of the class, many or most of whom don't even know they're part of the class. The administrators of the compensation fund have to try to reach the injured parties (in this case, I would think through ads, but it's possible they'd reach out to individuals through Chipotle's records of reward card holders or credit/debit card purchasers). In my experience, the compensation offered to class members is most often an insulting offer of a discount on more goods and service from the same company that just cheated you. The biggest benefits in class actions go to the plaintiff lawyers who brought the case, and, possibly, to consumers in some possible deterrent to future bad actions by companies.
So the lawyers make all the money. Shocking
0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »on the Chorizo burrito that was listed at 300 calories. Turns out the burrito is 3 to 4 times that amount.
http://laist.com/2016/11/19/make_chipotle_healthy_again.php
I bet any mfper could look at the ingredients alone and know that it was more than 300 calories - cheese, flour tortilla, white rice, chorizo, black beans and salsa.
ETA - not to mention the size of that burrito. My little low calorie burrito is 300 calories plus and its half that size.
I don't understand how a lawyer would have even approved of filing this claim (unless they filed it on their own). I realize that in a way it's false advertising - you're saying that something has a certain amount of calories in it but it doesn't, and companies shouldn't be allowed to do that and I agree that they should stop - but I just can't grasp what kind of damages they think they're looking at. They spent minimal money on purchasing this burrito - and now they're spent more filing the claim.
Even if I were to have eaten that thing, unless I barely ate anything else for that day, of course it would blow my one day of calories - but it wouldn't really cause me any damage that I can put into a monetary form. Also, while I realize that Americans have a bit of a different judicial system than in Canada, I assume a judge would consider what a "reasonable" person would have assumed in that situation and no reasonable person would look at that monstrosity and think that it has 300 calories in it.
For this exact reason, this type of lawsuit would typically be filed with a request for the court to certify a "class" of similarly situated injured plaintiffs (in this case, everybody who's ever ordered a chorizo burrito). Assuming the court approves the class, and the plaintiffs either win or negotiate a settlement with the corporation, whatever compensation is decided on is divided among the members of the class, many or most of whom don't even know they're part of the class. The administrators of the compensation fund have to try to reach the injured parties (in this case, I would think through ads, but it's possible they'd reach out to individuals through Chipotle's records of reward card holders or credit/debit card purchasers). In my experience, the compensation offered to class members is most often an insulting offer of a discount on more goods and service from the same company that just cheated you. The biggest benefits in class actions go to the plaintiff lawyers who brought the case, and, possibly, to consumers in some possible deterrent to future bad actions by companies.
So the lawyers make all the money. Shocking
I have quite a bit (over 6 years) working with mass tort (pharmaceutical and liability) litigation. In me experience the payouts for these usually goes like this;
A class action is created in specific or originating court
People sign up through their local lawyer who gets a small cut but doesn't represent the actual client
All work is done through the court by the initial or appointed law firm along with payout agreements to each individual firm for bringing in clients
Then they broadcast the crap out of the lawsuit nationwide to get as many people as possible to sign up regardless of what these people have actually suffered or not
They get questionnaires and intake forms along with HIPAA authorizations, releases, and more
Data mining is performed while the law firm goes to the court and starts filing as many as physically possible to overwhelm defense and encourage a payout (sometimes this happens)
If no payout then they will slowly start building their strongest cases to present (keep in mind there's still people apart of the suit still who have no business being there or have 0 case on their own), again trying to get a payout for the full number of people
Then if defense fights back and gets their own records and starts dropping cases left and right like no ones business (imagine someone who didn't even take said drug and somehow just signed up!)
Then year long refining process begins (i mean like 3-5+ years)
Then it depends on how many people they can sneak into the payout for more money and at the end lawyers usually take 40% or more.
So at the end of the day if the payout is *kitten* but there's 20,000 people sharing it AND lawyers take 40%+ you can just imagine.
Random Facts Galore!3 -
This a thing I've been wondering and this post made me remembermidwesterner85 wrote: »For those who have never visited Chipotle: You choose format of the meal (salad, burrito, tacos, etc.) and then you choose which meat to put into it, then you choose other toppings (beans, rice, sour cream, cheese, guacamole, salsa, etc.). My guess is that the meat itself on that sign was supposed to be 300 calories. Then you have to add calories for the salad, burrito shell, taco shell, or whatever you got it put into. Then you also have to add calories for everything else you get - black beans will have different calories than pinto beans, rice, etc.
Here is a photo I found online that looks similar to what I recall seeing on some menu boards:
Chances are good that this guy didn't understand that he has to add calories for the other components of the burrito made to his order.
ETA: The range on this sign is so big because it varies based on the lowest calorie meat and minimal additional toppings vs. getting the highest calorie meat and everything else on it.
Don't they ask you to build your toppings anyway? Their meals arent ready made products like Taco Bell or McDonald's. So it makes perfect sense for them to just tell you how many calories is in the ingredient while you build your burrito with other toppings0 -
Ok the injunction I can understand but "unspecified damages"? For what? Yes the calorie count is massively misleading but the company did not force them to eat the whole damn thing.
0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »For those who have never visited Chipotle: You choose format of the meal (salad, burrito, tacos, etc.) and then you choose which meat to put into it, then you choose other toppings (beans, rice, sour cream, cheese, guacamole, salsa, etc.). My guess is that the meat itself on that sign was supposed to be 300 calories. Then you have to add calories for the salad, burrito shell, taco shell, or whatever you got it put into. Then you also have to add calories for everything else you get - black beans will have different calories than pinto beans, rice, etc.
Here is a photo I found online that looks similar to what I recall seeing on some menu boards:
Chances are good that this guy didn't understand that he has to add calories for the other components of the burrito made to his order.
ETA: The range on this sign is so big because it varies based on the lowest calorie meat and minimal additional toppings vs. getting the highest calorie meat and everything else on it.
There is a picture in my OP that shows the in store menu showing a burrito with 300 Calories on the bottom there is no range.
I've never seen only one ingredient listed in a calorie count on a menu until I read this article.
The lawsuit includes the website so that may have been changed already I'm not positive about that though.
That wasn't the menu -- maybe this is where the disagreement is coming in. It was marketing materials (a photo of a new item in the store, not where you'd normally look for calorie information) and that aside IMO yes it was misleading. But -- and this is why I think it was a screw-up, not intentional fraud or whatever -- the other sources for calories like the website don't suggest that a whole burrito of any sort would be 300 calories and it's obvious they couldn't as what you put on the burrito varies greatly. A chorizo burrito could be close to 500 calories (the wrap and meat alone) or it could be more like 1300 calories (rice, beans, cheese, sour cream, avocado, other less caloric ingredients too). That sign looks like the kind of promotional thing they put up about a new ingredient (which the chorizo is), not the menu, although I've not seen one with calories on it before.
In that anyone who thinks twice would have realized the calorie claim made no sense, and wondered about the other menu items (especially if calories were also given on the menu as midwesterner showed), I simply can't believe that there would have been any advantage to the restaurant to have an intentionally misleading sign they'd get called on (and bad press from) shortly thereafter. Makes much more sense that it, like the WF plain yogurt that had an extremely low sugar number inconsistent with it containing lactose, was a screw up. I bet it did originally refer to the new ingredient and it got cut out when revising the look of the sign or something.
It's also likely it makes no difference to the lawsuit, because false marketing claims of this sort are prohibited intentional or not, I am sure -- there have to be specific statutes to that effect. As for the value of the suit -- I haven't looked at it, but returning the money of the people who bought it classwide could result in a decent sum for the lawyers. Maybe the plaintiffs just like having their names in the paper or were mad.
(Just for the record, I rarely go to Chipotle and have no personal incentive to defend them, but the idea that this was some scheme to defraud people or make lots of money misleading them about the calories on purpose just doesn't pass the red face test, to me. It's not logical at all. Doesn't matter to the claim, probably -- I think the claim is dumb and I think a lot of class actions are ridiculous and shouldn't be brought and are brought due to pecuniary interests of the lawyers, period, if that is indeed what this is which as said makes sense to me, but if they violated the rules and it seems to me they did, they probably are liable as part of the enforcement mechanism, and that's fair in my mind. The speculation that they were trying to defraud just seemed to me premature and probably wrong. I also think far too many people attribute to intent things that are just screw-ups. Corporations sometimes just screw up, without bad intent. I know that's something some will never grant, but it's true.)2 -
flagrantavidity wrote: »
Citation needed.They were being shut down constantly for making people sick.
http://fortune.com/2016/02/08/chipotle-food-safety-meeting/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffwilliams/2016/03/10/so-about-chipotles-latest-restaurant-closing-and-norovirus-near-miss-pr-experts-weigh-in-again/#43c4a8a74fd6
Thanks for the links, they do not verify the "constantly" claim but are enlightening all the same.
Did you not pay attention to the news? I wouldn't have asked for links because this was common knowledge when it was happening.0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »regardless if its mislabeling or deceptive we are talking about adults who can work, pay bills, and be productive members of society... no website is gonna ever convince me one of their big *kitten* burritos is 300 cals!
I agree with this - while they may have been mislead it is also up to the consumer to know and understand what they're eating.
Consumers - of anything, not just food products - have to be aware of what they're buying and be able to think for themselves about it.
What's the point of anybody having to provide you with information if you're supposed to already know it anyway?5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions