McDonald's is the world's largest restaurant chain. In 2002, overweight children in New York filed a lawsuit against McDonald's claiming that consuming their products led to obesity and related health issues. The plaintiffs argued that McDonald's engaged in deceptive advertising and failed to warn consumers about the dangers of their food. They claimed McDonald's food contained additives that created health hazards. The case was narrowed to these two allegations. For the plaintiffs to win, they would need to prove McDonald's food caused their obesity and harm would not have occurred with adequate warnings. While the case did not succeed, it motivated McDonald's to make some changes like providing more nutritional information and removing trans fats. Litigation against fast food companies could force them to

1. Presented by
Sakshi Saxena
ASU2013010200124
IBT VIIth

2. McDonald's is an American hamburger and fast food
restaurant chain.
It is the world's largest restaurant chain, serving
approximately 68 million customers daily in 119 countries
across approximately 36,538 outlets.

4. In august 2002 a group of overweight children in New York City filed a class
action lawsuit against McDonald’s Corporation seeking compensation for
•Obesity related health problems
•Improved nutritional labeling of McDonald’s products,
•Funding for a program to educate consumers about the dangers of fast food.
Pelman v.McDonald’s, brought on behalf of children who consumed
McDonald’s products and allegedly became obese or overweight and
developed diabetes, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, elevated
cholesterol intake, or other health effects as a result

5. The Pelman plaintiffs claimed that McDonald’s had engaged in deceptive
advertising, sales, and promotion;
 produced food that was unreasonably unsafe;
and failed to warn consumers of the dangers of its products.
The complaint alleged that McDonald’s knew or should have known that its
actions would exacerbate obesity and its associated health problems in millions of
American children.

6. The plaintiffs’ amended complaint, filed a month later was narrowed to two
main allegations :
First, McDonald’s food products were “so processed with additives and
other ingredients and preservatives” that they created a “danger and hazard,”
and McDonald’s was negligent in failing to warn consumers of this hazard.
 Second, McDonald’s marketing behavior amounted to fraudulent and
deceptive business practices under New York State’s consumer protection
laws.

7. The plaintiff must prove that
(1) the danger was not apparent to the average
consumer;
(2) the product is unreasonably dangerous for its intended
use;
(3) the plaintiff’s obesity was caused by the food in question;
(4) the harm would not have occurred had an adequate
warning been given.

8. The Pelman plaintiffs claimed that McDonald’s falsely represented its
food as nutritious in its advertising and marketing and that the content
and preparation methods of its food were neither honestly described nor
what consumers ordinarily would expect.
For instance, McDonald’smarketed
its fries as “zero cholesterol” but did not
disclose that the fries are cooked in oils that
contain trans fatty acids, which have been
found to raise atherogenic LDL cholesterol
levels even more than saturated fat.

10. •The Pelman plaintiffs observed that the claims made on the McDonald’sWeb site
have changed since the filing of that suit.
•Nutritional information on Mc Donald's products is increasingly being posted in
prominent locations and online.
•McDonald’s has announced plans to remove trans fats and reduce saturated fats
in french fries, chips, and other products—although McDonald’s has since
•“delayed” implementation of the decision.
•McDonald’s also announced in March 2003 that it would be adding a number of
lower-fat and lower-calorie offerings to its menu.
•Mc- Donald’s television commercials in Britain highlight the health benefits of
items such as fruit bags and pasta salad—a major change in an advertising
strategy that has consistently focused on taste, value, and convenience.

11. If widespread and successful, litigation would force fast-food defendants to
shoulder more of the costs associated with consumption of their products.
In this way, courts’ decisions imposing liability on manufacturers of asbestos,
guns, medical devices, tobacco, fast food, and other products that pose public
health harms have major socioeconomic implications.
Even if not successful, fast-food litigation could motivate food makers to
introduce voluntary changes in their business practices.