Thursday, January 30


I kept tellin' ya that the McDonalds "fat" lawsuit wasn't a matter of one case winning or losing. After that first one was dismissed, there was a week of crowing from short-sighted pundits who thought it was all over. But already the backlash to the backlash has set in: The head of the American Tort Reform Association is pointing out that the door is wide open for modified, improved versions of the suit; CNN's law columnist explains why suing McDonalds could be a good thing - mostly because it forces them to clean up their act - as they're doing to some extent in the UK, even embracing organic milk.

But the kicker to the "frivolous" charge is that fast food is not cigarettes - there, after all, the product was addictive as well as harmful. Well, as George W. likes to say, Guess Whut? Now scientists say fast food may be addictive and are looking into the mechanisms by which the fast-food "habit" maintains itself. Time for a new strategery!
UPDATE: A longer piece in which John Banzhaf champs at the bit to refile the suit.

No comments: