Nutella Gets Spanked in Class-Action Suit

1246

Replies

  • Myrtlemama4
    Myrtlemama4 Posts: 92 Member
    Well then Nutella can take it out the the money they paid the Kardashians to endorse it..remember that one?
  • grassette
    grassette Posts: 976 Member
    The Nutella commercials are just ridiculous. They had it coming.
  • leannems
    leannems Posts: 516 Member
    I think a lot of people are missing the point here. Yes, everyone should be responsible for their own health, but the ultimate claim is false advertising. The ad does make it sound like a health food. Yes - everyone (not just Americans - way to stereotype an entire nation) should pay attention to what they're putting in their bodies, but that doesn't mean a company should be allowed to claim that a sugary spread is healthy.

    The other thing - she didn't win - the company settled. So if you're shocked at the payout amount (yes, most of which will go to lawyers, but this is designed so that lawyers will take on cases for classes who cannot afford to pay or are otherwise undesirable) blame the makers of Nutella. They obviously saw a risk and decided to settle the case. They wouldn't have done this if they were sure they would win.

    And please do your research - while there have been some frivolous lawsuits (example - McDonald's made me fat - tossed out of court) there have also been some non-frivolous ones (example, McDonald's coffee is too hot - and it was - McDonald's could have settled for medical expenses - but they fought. Testimony came out that they stored it at a level too hot for human consumption, and served it under the assumption that people wouldn't try to drink it right away. The facts of the suit aren't great - she spilled the coffee in her lap - but what if she hadn't - what if she had taken a sip right away and burned her esophagus? Wouldn't be so frivolous then).

    On a personal note - from a false advertising standpoint, I think the claim is valid. Look at the ad - they are clearly trying to make it sound like a health food. Yes, people should read labels, but we'd be outraged if McDonald's called a BigMac healthy - so what's the difference here?
  • futuremalestripper
    futuremalestripper Posts: 467 Member
    If I was on the jury, I would have found Nutella innocent immediately.
    Reason being, look at the fricken content.
    The numbers may depend on your preference of peanut butter brand but I like Skippy so compare:
    Calories in 2tbsp: PB 190 Nutella 200
    Fat: PB 16g Nutella 11g
    Carbs: PB 7g Nutella 22g
    Protein: PB 7g Nutella 3g
    So by using Nutella instead of PB, I'm losing 5g of fat and adding 15g of carbs. Maybe I'm crazy but that doesn't really phase me. Everytime I track my calories, I'm always high on everything, but deficient on carbs. Furthermore, just the bread you choose can make a difference of 10g of carbs. I think the bread selection is more important than the decision between PB and Nutella. I rather eat 40 calorie bread with nutella than 120 calorie bread with PB. Not to mention that every peanut butter manufacturers' website shows photos of kids eating it for breakast with smiling parents in the background. They all say their crap is healthy. This lawsuit was bogus and it makes me want to buy a case of Nutella to show my support. I understand it was a settlement, but the fact it even became a case to begin with bothers me. Whoever brought it up is an idiot. This is the b.s. that makes people hate judicial systems.
    Note: I like the judicial system and lawyers. I just wish we made a law that filtered out the greedy and stupid plaintiffs.
  • HelloDan
    HelloDan Posts: 712 Member
    The best thing about this thread is all the responses saying that the judge\jury should have thrown out the case and told the woman to actually read the label.

    Perhaps the same people should have heeded their own advice and actually read the story and discovered that no judge or jury was involved!
  • futuremalestripper
    futuremalestripper Posts: 467 Member
    The best thing about this thread is all the responses saying that the judge\jury should have thrown out the case and told the woman to actually read the label.

    Perhaps the same people should have heeded their own advice and actually read the story and discovered that no judge or jury was involved!

    I can't speak for others, but I was operating under a hypothetical.
    If I was on a jury and that case came before me, I would definitely have sided with Nutella.
  • TootsieRolls
    TootsieRolls Posts: 31
    I think the lawyers get about 30% from the settlement or $750,000 BUT they also get attorney's fees from the Nutella people. I believe I read that those are up to $3 million. All in all they are going to make more than the class of "injured" people.
    I think you guys are giving lawyers a bad rap here. The whole point of class actions is that no one plaintiff is hurt badly enough to be able to sue on their own, but collectively, there's enough damage the company has to pay up. It's more about making sure the company pays the consequences for doing something wrong than making their customers rich. Without the class action, there's no punishment for doing something wrong and the company gets off scot-free even when it's doing something it shouldn't.

    As a future lawyer, I'm definitely not giving them a bad rap. :tongue:
    Your dead on about the purpose of class actions. Despite the fact that typically only lawyers get rich, I think class actions are important to protect consumers. Unfortunately, I assume that Nutella will probably pass off their loss to consumers by raising prices.

    I'm on the same page as you and was trying to respond to the myriad of comments of "HOW CAN DIS IDIOT GETZ ALL DAT MONEYZ. TAKE AWAY HER CHILDRENZ" - which I find quite humorous. There is so much criticism about her inability to read a nutrition label to get the facts and some people here can't even read a brief article to get the facts themselves.
  • mixedfeelings
    mixedfeelings Posts: 904 Member
    That does seem a bit ridiculous. The information is there, the company doesn't force feed children with it. I can't see that the advert is misleading. Nutella isn't awful, I'm guessing it's better than the sugary cereals out there? Nutella to me was always a treat when I was younger, I had it once a year on my birthday cake. The rest of the jar was then eaten by my mum, presumably for my own health. Giving a kid nutella on toast is better than no breakfast, I could only see that the advert purported to give kids energy.

    I just think there are too many lawsuits and not enough common sense.
  • ZugTheMegasaurus
    ZugTheMegasaurus Posts: 801 Member
    I think the lawyers get about 30% from the settlement or $750,000 BUT they also get attorney's fees from the Nutella people. I believe I read that those are up to $3 million. All in all they are going to make more than the class of "injured" people.
    I think you guys are giving lawyers a bad rap here. The whole point of class actions is that no one plaintiff is hurt badly enough to be able to sue on their own, but collectively, there's enough damage the company has to pay up. It's more about making sure the company pays the consequences for doing something wrong than making their customers rich. Without the class action, there's no punishment for doing something wrong and the company gets off scot-free even when it's doing something it shouldn't.

    As a future lawyer, I'm definitely not giving them a bad rap. :tongue:
    Your dead on about the purpose of class actions. Despite the fact that typically only lawyers get rich, I think class actions are important to protect consumers. Unfortunately, I assume that Nutella will probably pass off their loss to consumers by raising prices.

    I'm on the same page as you and was trying to respond to the myriad of comments of "HOW CAN DIS IDIOT GETZ ALL DAT MONEYZ. TAKE AWAY HER CHILDRENZ" - which I find quite humorous. There is so much criticism about her inability to read a nutrition label to get the facts and some people here can't even read a brief article to get the facts themselves.
    Hey fellow future-lawyer! Seeing your comment alone, I can see how you weren't actually being judgmental; when I saw it with the other one, it looked more like an agreement, so sorry for misunderstanding. :smile:

    I feel like I'm in bizarro world in this thread, haha. Here's a whole forum full of posts exactly like the woman in the Nutella case might well have made, but people are acting like she's a complete moron. On the bright side, all the "if I were that judge/on that jury, I would have definitely sided with the company" type comments completely reassure me about my recent decision to switch from litigation/criminal to transactional/IP...
  • mfp_junkie
    mfp_junkie Posts: 359
    Most of your are a food manufacturer's wet dream. Basically, you are ok with any company saying anything in an advertisement, because you are all smart enough to read the labels and decide for yourself.

    Good for you. Be proud. Corporate America has nothing on you.

    For the rest of us, who are inundated with a plethora of advertising every single day, we'd prefer that Corporate America not outright lie to us. Have you seen the ads? "Made with skim milk, roasted hazelnuts and a HINT of cocoa". Sounds like a pretty good food choice to me, on the surface.

    Now go out and eat an apple and run 5K. Can't possibly be anyone on this site that isn't a vegan marathon runner, now is there?
  • Elizabeth_C34
    Elizabeth_C34 Posts: 6,376 Member
    Because reading the label is SO HARD for some people... Ugh...
  • jk262
    jk262 Posts: 1,597 Member
    Honestly, it's as bad as the woman who burned herself with McDonald's coffee. Read the farm labels people. Yes, the commercials say slim milk, cocoa, and hazelnuts, but that doesn't male it the healthiest thing on the planet. I use Nutella as my go to splurge for some chocolate and yummy. I only use it in moderation and never just gorge on it.

    Still...being stupid and winning lawsuits for said stupidity? Some people have all the luck?

    I was thinking the same thing! The mdconalds coffee thing popped into my head.. really ? duh, coffee's hot!
  • futuremalestripper
    futuremalestripper Posts: 467 Member
    I understand Nutella isn't the healthiest thing in the world and is obviously not equivalent to an apple, but does that mean it is terribly unhealthy? I grew up on peanut butter sandwiches everyday for lunch, as did most of my friends, none of us were fat because of it or unhealthy. Likewise, I have relatives in Norway that grew up on Nutella sandwiches everyday for lunch - and it wasn't an issue either. It does have a fair bit of carbs, but carbs are essential. You can't go feeding your kids a jar a day, but the same goes for a lot of other foods - moderation. Since my diet started, I like something sweet and I find Nutella is great for that. I put it on some low calorie bread and it feeds a craving while still not affecting my diet and I'm losing over 2lbs a week. Anything can be viewed as healthy or unhealthy in comparison to something else, not to mention portion control. I suspect most people on here base their diet around everything they consume and not just one item. If you get extra carbs here, subtract them somewhere else. Otherwise someone could argue that any item that is high in fat or high in carbs is unhealthy. Coconut is extremely high in fat, but that doesn't mean coconut is unhealthy.
  • carrietehbear
    carrietehbear Posts: 384 Member
    Nutella's ads were no worse than the the sugary kids cereal claiming to be good for you b/c they now have whole grains. Who wants to sue the cereal companies?
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    Maybe the sugary cereal companies should stop lying. What if someone put out an ad claiming that cigarettes are part of a balanced breakfast for kids because the nicotine will give them energy? Obviously anyone who believes it would be ridiculous, but wouldn't we want the cigarette manufacturer punished or at the very least stopped?
  • natvanessa
    natvanessa Posts: 230 Member
    I agree that the commercials and even the front of the jar depict Nutella as "healthy". Of course I always knew better but always wondered how they got away with that.

    However, I love the stuff but it was the first thing I tossed in the trash a few months ago when I decided to start eating healthy!!
  • alladream
    alladream Posts: 261 Member
    --sad but true about the lack of personal responsibility especially in the US these days--and then people wonder why their lives are crappy, if they develop no personal power and discipline--
  • nadaliasparrow
    nadaliasparrow Posts: 2 Member
    my only beef is that i didnt think of it first lol >.<
  • xHelloQuincyx
    xHelloQuincyx Posts: 884 Member
    *bump to read later
  • mrs_madame
    mrs_madame Posts: 48 Member
    Welcome to America, the only place in the world where you can sue everyone else for your own stupidity! I liked Europe better -_-
  • femmi1120
    femmi1120 Posts: 473 Member


    For the rest of us, who are inundated with a plethora of advertising every single day, we'd prefer that Corporate America not outright lie to us. Have you seen the ads? "Made with skim milk, roasted hazelnuts and a HINT of cocoa". Sounds like a pretty good food choice to me, on the surface.

    Just thought I'd point out that every ingredient you listed is an actual ingredient in the product, so I really don't see where the "outright lie" is.

    Stop hating on the advertisers. Of course they're not going to give you both sides of the story. That's not their job. Their job is to make the product look good. It is YOUR job to get the other side of the story.
  • veganbaum
    veganbaum Posts: 1,865 Member
    You can watch the commercial here, which I had never seen:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57423319-10391704/nutella-health-claims-net-$3.05-million-settlement-in-class-action-lawsuit/

    Let's see, it says that Nutella is made from simple ingredients and that it's something the kids will want to eat. How is that giving the idea that it's healthy?

    I'm embarrassed for my country. I can't believe a lawyer/law firm took this case and that a judge decided in favor of the plaintiffs. This is a ridiculous waste of judicial resources and sends a message that even if the company provides information right there on the label the individual is not responsible for reading it.
  • SassetG
    SassetG Posts: 19
    How does someone get away with that. Thats what nutrition, and ingredient labels are for.. WTF!

    I love nutella, but im still losing weight.. Its called moderation.
  • jodycoady
    jodycoady Posts: 598 Member
    Every time I saw that commercial it made me mad....WTH are parents thinking giving their kids chocolate for breakfast. Shame on you dummies. You need to be more advertising savvy, all those ads are lies!

    Just stick to the chocolate chip pancakes with whipped cream.
  • beckylawrence70
    beckylawrence70 Posts: 752 Member
    That stuff is gross!!
  • Trechechus
    Trechechus Posts: 2,819 Member
    This really pissed me off when I read it in the news yesterday. People need to learn to read labels. This is why I have no faith in our justice system.

    "Hmmm. It's made of nuts (which are healthy, but high in fat), chocolate and sugar. That means it must be healthy, right?"
  • Trechechus
    Trechechus Posts: 2,819 Member
    That stuff is gross!!

    Yes, it is.
  • femmi1120
    femmi1120 Posts: 473 Member
    This post made me crave nutella and I just ate some...

    I would like to sue the OP for making me eat nutella. Also, I'd like to sue the rest of your for not stopping me. How dare you all try to sabotage my progress??? :angry:
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    The lawsuit is more about the false advertising, not that the product itself caused harm.
  • victoria4321
    victoria4321 Posts: 1,719 Member
    You can watch the commercial here, which I had never seen:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57423319-10391704/nutella-health-claims-net-$3.05-million-settlement-in-class-action-lawsuit/

    Let's see, it says that Nutella is made from simple ingredients and that it's something the kids will want to eat. How is that giving the idea that it's healthy?

    I'm embarrassed for my country. I can't believe a lawyer/law firm took this case and that a judge decided in favor of the plaintiffs. This is a ridiculous waste of judicial resources and sends a message that even if the company provides information right there on the label the individual is not responsible for reading the damn thing.

    The commercial says its great for whole wheat toast and whole wheat waffles (generally thought to be "health foods") then goes on to mention its innocent ingredients. Such as, hazelnuts, skim milk, just a hint (lol) of cocoa. I think it forgot to mention a gallon of sugar. I still think all their ads are misleading.

    Just being on MFP on a regular basis makes us know a little more about health and nutrition than the average person. You have to see how the ad is misleading to the general population, not to more health conscience people.

Categories