Nutella Gets Spanked in Class-Action Suit

Options
1235789

Replies

  • rob_kurtz
    rob_kurtz Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    If this is how it works, I guess it's time for me to go sue every fast food chain because I'm obese. I mean really? I know that I'm the size I am because of what I put in my body. It's not their fault. When will people take responsibility for their own actions? People like that need to stop breathing my air.
  • AdiposeRapture
    AdiposeRapture Posts: 61
    Options
    I would say "OMG I can't believe this" but honestly, I'm getting used to this people and their sue happy ways.


    I'm going to sue myself for eating to much and making myself fat. Have myself arrested for assault.
    *Shake My Head*
  • Bmontgomery613
    Bmontgomery613 Posts: 200 Member
    Options
    Wait...Nutella isn't healthy??? But, but, it has SKIM milk! Holy crap. The stupid, it just burns! :( I hate the lack of personal responsibility in our country. My 8 and 5 year olds know that advertisers are out to sell stuff and don't necessarily tell the whole truth in their commercials. I find it incredibly sad that grown men and women can't understand this concept.
  • Roeri011
    Roeri011 Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    From seeing the Nutella commercials I thought it was healthy. I was at the grocery store looking for a better nut butter than peanut butter & grabbed a Nutella jar. Then turned it around, read the label, and then put it back on the shelf.

    My husband jumped on the Nutella class action lawsuit bandwagon so we'll probably get a check in the mail for $10 soon.
  • andreanicole686
    andreanicole686 Posts: 406 Member
    Options
    Seriously??? I hate people that do this kind of stuff. No one forced her to eat a whole damn jar every day. Read labels people.
  • andreanicole686
    andreanicole686 Posts: 406 Member
    Options
    What an idiot. However I will freely admit I used to eat it out of the container while I was pregnant. Maybe I should sue my kids for making me overweight lol.
    [/quote
    hahaha hilarious girl!
  • basschick
    basschick Posts: 3,502 Member
    Options
    Is this woman stupid for thinking Nutella is "healthy"? Yes. Should she have read the label? Most definitely. However, Nutella's ad IS misleading and there is way too much lying going on in advertising these days. Maybe this lawsuit will make Ferraro and other companies think twice about making false claims in their ads.
  • helenoftroy1
    helenoftroy1 Posts: 638 Member
    Options
    but what did she expect??? You have got to take some responsibility for your actions and buying hot coffee and not expecting it to be hot is silly. Eating tubs of nutella and getting fat and then blaming nutella is silly. People are too quick to blame others and need to accept responsibility. Especially if kids are involved (like said Nutella case).

    Do some real research on the McDonald's case. The reason they were sued and LOST was due to food safety issues. The coffee was being held at a temperature that was NOT considered safe. It was being held too hot for human consumption. There are laws put in place about these things for safety reasons. The woman sustained third degree burns. She tried to settle for a small amount of money to cover medical expenses, but McDonald's refused. That is why it went to court.

    I once thought it was a silly lawsuit, until I actually did a case study on it. McDonald's screwed up horribly. The injuries would not have happened if McDonald's had not been negligent.
    [/quote]

    Hazard versus Risk. She was found 20 per cent to blame. Putting hot cup of coffee (82 C, slightly higher temperature than food has to LEGALLY be cooked to in restaurants) between legs. Hot coffee spilling on person. One daft action caused bad results.
    Hindsight is a great thing.... if only I didn't put that hot styrophone cup of coffee between my legs and had placed it on a stable surface. If one I hadn't eaten that second jar of Nutella. Just my view
  • hesn92
    hesn92 Posts: 5,967 Member
    Options
    what an idiot. Why are people so stupid?
  • rc630
    rc630 Posts: 310 Member
    Options
    Maybe I should sue my kids for making me overweight lol.

    You just gave me the best idea!
    ATTENTION ALL WOMEN TRYING TO LOSE BABY WEIGHT:
    Get together and file a class action lawsuit against all children (people under 18 years of age) for your weight gain due to pregnancy.
    If you are under 18 and also a mother, you will have to be both defendant and plaintiff.

    Court dismissed, send in the dancing lobsters.
  • Myrtlemama4
    Myrtlemama4 Posts: 92 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    The Nutella commercials are just ridiculous. They had it coming.
  • leannems
    leannems Posts: 516 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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?

Categories