Nutella Gets Spanked in Class-Action Suit

Musikelektronik

The greedy ones are the lawyers. According to the article, the lawyers in this case will get about $1 million. But that's a key component of any class-action settlement. Yes, there's a fund for the class, but each class member usually gets just a few dollars. The lawyers, on the other hand, get rich. That's what makes these cases disgusting, if you ask me. :grumble:

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.

What are you, a plaintiff's class-action lawyer or something?!? :laugh: But seriously, you're correct about the basic concept of a class action. Because each consumer's alleged damages are very small, it wouldn't make economic sense to pursue these claims individually. The class action is the only vehicle by which a large number of relatively small claims could be successfully prosecuted.

But what irks me about these cases is that in many cases, no one is really "injured." Take this case for example. Just because the plaintiff had a colorable claim that the manufacturers of Nutella made the product seem healthier than it really was doesn't mean that she was actually injured by that alleged conduct. Sure, maybe she wouldn't have bought a jar of Nutella for $4. So what. We've all bought products for various reasons that seemed better in advertisements than they really were.

The ugly truth of class actions is that the claims are first dreamed up by plaintiff's lawyers who then go out and search for a person to be the plaintiff. In these cases, a lawyer's "quest for justice" doesn't begin with a downtrodden person coming into his or her office complaining about how they've been wronged by the big, bad corporation. It's just the opposite -- the lawyer dreams up the claim and then goes searching for someone who's willing to say, "yeah, that happened to me."

And because these claims can be so expensive to defend and can create huge levels of exposure, many companies are forced to settle just to eliminate the risk and ongoing expense of litigation. Plaintiff's lawyers know this, and that's why they file these cases. Because many times, they get paid very handsomely, regardless of the merits of the action.

mommamuscles

Why didnt I think of this? :P

veganbaum

And in developed countries, with only a partial exception for those living in the lower socioeconomic class, we have access to the information we need to make informed decisions. Yes, corporations should be held to certain standards, that doesn't negate our personal responsibility.

...you do know that a lot of people live in a lower socioeconomic class, right? 3.5million is not a lot of money. The total US population is around 350 million. I'm way more than certain than the 3.5 million wouldn't even give a dollar to everyone from the lower socioeconomic class who were misled.

I live in one of the poorest states in the country. This is a very specific situation, but most people I know have never even heard of Nutella. And even if they had, why should people get money for being misled? Injury, sure, but not for being misled.

victoria4321

And in developed countries, with only a partial exception for those living in the lower socioeconomic class, we have access to the information we need to make informed decisions. Yes, corporations should be held to certain standards, that doesn't negate our personal responsibility.

...you do know that a lot of people live in a lower socioeconomic class, right? 3.5million is not a lot of money. The total US population is around 350 million. I'm way more than certain than the 3.5 million wouldn't even give a dollar to everyone from the lower socioeconomic class who were misled.

I live in one of the poorest states in the country. This is a very specific situation, but most people I know have never even heard of Nutella. And even if they had, why should people get money for being misled? Injury, sure, but not for being misled.

Because they want a REFUND. If they were injured, they would get more money. I always want a refund if I purchase a misleading product. People call companies and ask for refunds all the time. Don't you ever see on the side of a product where it says "Satisfaction guaranteed! Call xxx-xxx-xxxx if you're not happy". The only difference here is its a lot of people at once, hence the 3.5 million. Everyone's going to get a regular refund on their jars of nutella though.

mariiyah

cool. now she can get herself a liposuction & tummy tuck. the c*w.

veganbaum

And in developed countries, with only a partial exception for those living in the lower socioeconomic class, we have access to the information we need to make informed decisions. Yes, corporations should be held to certain standards, that doesn't negate our personal responsibility.

...you do know that a lot of people live in a lower socioeconomic class, right? 3.5million is not a lot of money. The total US population is around 350 million. I'm way more than certain than the 3.5 million wouldn't even give a dollar to everyone from the lower socioeconomic class who were misled.

I live in one of the poorest states in the country. This is a very specific situation, but most people I know have never even heard of Nutella. And even if they had, why should people get money for being misled? Injury, sure, but not for being misled.

Because they want a REFUND. If they were injured, they would get more money. I always want a refund if I purchase a misleading product. People call companies and ask for refunds all the time. Don't you ever see on the side of a product where it says "Satisfaction guaranteed! Call xxx-xxx-xxxx if you're not happy". The only difference here is its a lot of people at once, hence the 3.5 million. Everyone's going to get a regular refund on their jars of nutella though.

It's still a waste. You buy a product, don't like it, yeah you can often return it and get your money back. But I think this was a frivolous waste of *judicial resources* to begin with. You figure out the product's not what you thought, then stop buying it. Of course this is also based on my opinion that the advertising in this case wasn't false or misleading. If I though it was, then I would think differently.

Gah, I need to leave this thread and go study.

helenoftroy1

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).

Clearly you never bothered to look further into the case. McDonald's was serving their coffee at unacceptably high temperatures and have had plenty of complaints about it beforehand. She was the first to make "headlines" about it.

Spilling a hot beverage on yourself, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it, should NOT result in third degree burns.
[/quote]

clearly you did not read my response after this. I did look further into the case and they were serving the coffee at 82 degrees centigrade. Food in England has to by law be served above 75 degrees. You don't see people sueing because they burnt their tongue. Anyway.... if you had seen my post after you would have seen my point about hazard and risk. The hazard was the hot cup of coffee, the risk was her spilling it on herself. She greatly increased risk by putting it between her legs and trying to take the top off instead of putting it on to a stable surface. My point was that she should have taken some responsibility and she was found 20 per cent to blame anyway. So, clearly the courts thought she was a little stoopid as well huh?!?!

helenoftroy1

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...

I knew I sensed another lawyer. I'm surprised at the responses myself - people would rip this apart in any Torts class.

Also, the allegations of "no personal responsibility" and there being "so many stupid lawsuits nowadays" are completely unfounded. Oy - stop honing in on and believing every media story about how everyone is out to make a quick buck. Lawsuits have dropped dramatically in recent years!

I disagree to an extent. First, where's the tort? Maybe you're seeing it and I'm not, or maybe I'm misreading what you're saying. There *should* be a certain level of personal responsibility expected of people - a "reasonable person" standard in everyday life if you will, which unfortunately isn't necessarily always the average person these days. And I personally think this is a frivolous lawsuit and a violation of ethical rules. But I guess my ethical standards are different from the lawyers who took this on. (**Disclaimer - this is only my personal opinion, lol).

^^^ this. Unfortunately in Britain law suits on stupid no win no fee, have you had an accident in the last 5 years are going very strong still. People are even taking cameras into hospitals now to try and film a doctor screwing up. What kind of perverse world are we living in?

tiffanic83

I thought it was kind of silly. Its important to read labels, thats why they're there! And being a parent, I would hope you would take even more pride in what you feed your kids because you want them to be healthy (and yes I know parents are busy and this isn't always easy). If people advertised the truth, companies would never make money simple as that and as awful as it is... Heck I always put olive oil on my salads then I discovered how calorically dense it is and now I use balsamic vinegar. its all about education I guess and doing it for yourself.

SirBen81

What? Something that is 50% granulated sugar isn't healthy?! I deserve $3 million for this deception...

Seriously, we live in such a litigious society it's just ridiculous.

sherri85

Oh crap, that was my idea!!!!!!!!!!! I'm gonna sue her for stealing it!

rotfl!!! :laugh:

HealthyHappy120

wut..:noway:

karisma81

I do think companies should be punished for blatantly misleading advertising. People on this website are all educated consumers who read labels but this isn't true for a large segment of the population.

Mom0fTwo

All I read was "nutella" and "spanked"


I stopped there.

me too and then i had to read it one more time to read it right lol

karmaticgeek

To be fair, they did market it quite heavily as a nutritious food for breakfast, particularly children's breakfasts. There were complaints about the adverts here in the UK too. I don't think a class action suit is appropriate but they shouldn't try to advertise it as part of a healthy breakfast either.

jodycoady

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.

LOL so chocolate chip cake and whipped cream is any better? I hope you don't feed your kids cake for breakfast, its not any better than nutella on toast fyi. (btw pancakes are cakes, just not prepared the same way. You might as well eat a cupcake)

I guess you didn't get my sarcasm

MoreBean13

Nutella should have gone with the "Its better than nothing" campaign that all the garbage cereals and poptart type foods go with.

Musikelektronik

All I read was "nutella" and "spanked"


I stopped there.

me too and then i had to read it one more time to read it right lol

It's a catchy headline, no? Maybe I should have been a journalist? :laugh:

FlaxMilk

Of course this is also based on my opinion that the advertising in this case wasn't false or misleading. If I though it was, then I would think differently.

I'm honestly curious, not being antagonistic or anything. But if Reese's promoted a pack of their peanut butter cups as part of a balanced breakfast and suitable for a breakfast for an elementary school kid, would you feel that was false or misleading advertising? Because the two are very similar nutritionally, particularly in terms of calories and sugar.

I suspect that people that would say "no" would lean that may more because of the notion that "Everyone knows Reese's is not a health food!" But that has nothing to do with personal responsibility and more to do with pretty common knowledge. I had no idea what Nutella was until a friend told me to buy it. As it turns out, I have never tried it because as a vegan I do read labels and I can't eat it. But from their website, not knowing what it was, reading their advertising, I would think it was a decent choice for a breakfast, because a food company can't lie to me and tell me something is good for my child when it isn't, can they?

Yes, they can. That's why they can call bread whole grain when it has a trace of whole wheat flour and the rest refined white flour. That's how McDonald's got away with hiding that their french fries were basted in beef fat, by referring to it as "natural flavoring." (Last time I checked, cow fat is not a natural part of a potato.) But those are two of the reasons I don't think they *should* be allowed to make claims that are misleading or deceptive. The FDA is more frequently requiring companies to back up health claims. That's often why all of a sudden they disappear off of advertising. Because they couldn't back it up.

cpettigrew

And once again, Americans just had to show the world how STUPID they really are.