McDonald's Lawsuit

[StormRichards]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/man-sues-mcdonalds-over-extra-value-meal/ar-BBxpFS4?li=BBnb7Kz

A suburban Chicago man is suing McDonald’s restaurants in two Illinois counties, arguing cheeseburger “Extra Value Meals” are actually more expensive than when the items are purchased separately.

James Gertie of Des Plaines tells The Daily Herald in Arlington Heights, Ill., that bundling two cheeseburgers, medium french fries and a drink at $5.90 is 41 cents more than when individual items are purchased.

Gertie, a bus driver, says his lawsuit filed this month is about principle, not 41 cents.

He seeks class-action status for a consumer fraud and deceptive practices lawsuit against McDonald’s operator Karis Management.

[disneysteve]

I am totally okay with lawsuits like this. Deceptive advertising, marketing, and pricing costs consumers millions every year. Sure, 41 cents is not a lot of money, but there are over 14,000 McDonald's locations in the US. How many customers are overpaying that 41 cents? I love to see companies get nailed for crap like this.

[rennigade]

Im kinda on the fence about this. Its a shady practice but I dont see the harm in trying to deceive others when the prices are clearly labeled and right in front of you. Grocery stores do it all the time. At my store you can buy a 250 pack of napkins for like $3.00. The 500 pack is $5.00. Which is the better option? I dont see the difference other than the "value meal" wording. Why should we assume "value meal" means cheaper? Would it be ok to say "non value meal?"

The last time I was to a mcdonalds I purchased a double cheeseburger for my dog. He loves those nasty things.

Im more of a taco bell person. Doesnt matter where I am on vacation and the great restaurants we eat at...I will still seek out a taco bell one time for dinner and slay a 12 pack of soft shells. I only do that when on vacation though...if you make something like this a regular thing you'll probably die.

[StormRichards]

I am totally okay with lawsuits like this. Deceptive advertising, marketing, and pricing costs consumers millions every year. Sure, 41 cents is not a lot of money, but there are over 14,000 McDonald's locations in the US. How many customers are overpaying that 41 cents? I love to see companies get nailed for crap like this.

I totally agree. I definitely think this lawsuit has merit and there will be a positive outcome for the customers.

[cypher1]

First comment read from the article:
"So.....Buy them separately, save 41 cents, case closed."

That's what I'd do.

[Snydley]

I agree with this lawsuit as well. They are trying to trick people, as it is a logical assumption that buying more items will give a discount, not cost more.

[Fishindude77]

Just another case of somebody trying to hit a home run lawsuit off of a company with deep pockets. Crap like this shouldn't even get to court.

[Petunia 100]

Just another case of somebody trying to hit a home run lawsuit off of a company with deep pockets. Crap like this shouldn't even get to court.

It's a class action suit.

[greenskeeper]

lawyers will get richer, consumers will pay more

[disneysteve]

Im kinda on the fence about this. Its a shady practice but I dont see the harm in trying to deceive others when the prices are clearly labeled and right in front of you. Grocery stores do it all the time. At my store you can buy a 250 pack of napkins for like $3.00. The 500 pack is $5.00. Which is the better option? I dont see the difference other than the "value meal" wording. Why should we assume "value meal" means cheaper? Would it be ok to say "non value meal?"

Supermarkets post the item price AND the unit price so it is very easy to look and see which size package is the best deal without pulling out a calculator and running the numbers. They aren't hiding anything. And I've found plenty of times when the larger package actually wasn't the better deal - because the info was posted clear as day right on the shelf.

In the McDonald's situation, you could sit there and add up the cost of the individual items and discover, as this guy did, that the "extra value" meal is actually an extra rip-off, but that shouldn't be necessary. I think it's fair to say that the typical customer is going to assume that "extra value" means there is a price advantage to buying the combo meal. If "extra value" doesn't mean you save money, what does it mean exactly?

[kork13]

For the case to be made a class action, he needs to establish a "class" of people willing to join the lawsuit. Sure, there will be a literal bum rush of two-bit lawyers seeking claimants to join the class, and certainly they'll find some... But it's still a hurdle he'll have to get beyond in proving to the court that this was not a one-off discrepancy but endemic throughout the company.

Although there is some merit to the argument, it's not worth the time of the courts. I wish there was a provision for piddly lawsuits to be adjudicated in arbitration vs. courts of law. I foresee this petering out as a small settlement (aka "hush money"), and McDonalds will change:
a) the composition of their "value meals"
b) the prices of their "value meals" and/or the individual items
c) the name of their "value meals" to be something like "combo meals" which don't imply better value
d) any or all of the above

[disneysteve]

Although there is some merit to the argument, it's not worth the time of the courts. I wish there was a provision for piddly lawsuits to be adjudicated in arbitration vs. courts of law. I foresee this petering out as a small settlement (aka "hush money"), and McDonalds will change:
a) the composition of their "value meals"
b) the prices of their "value meals" and/or the individual items
c) the name of their "value meals" to be something like "combo meals" which don't imply better value
d) any or all of the above

I agree with all of the above. The case has merit but there are more important things for the courts to do and there ought to be a system in place to handle issues like this.

[StormRichards]

I know I am drawing on a fictitious TV show, but I like how it goes down sometimes on Law & Order. The judge pulls all parties into chambers and strongly encourages them to settle. How often that goes down in the real world I have know idea, but I suspect it does happen.

McDonald's doesn't admit to any wrongdoing but agrees to change how they price value meals. Toss the plaintiff a pre-loaded Arch Card and pay his legal fees.

[disneysteve]

I know I am drawing on a fictitious TV show, but I like how it goes down sometimes on Law & Order. The judge pulls all parties into chambers and strongly encourages them to settle. How often that goes down in the real world I have know idea, but I suspect it does happen.

McDonald's doesn't admit to any wrongdoing but agrees to change how they price value meals. Toss the plaintiff a pre-loaded Arch Card and pay his legal fees.

I think this does happen. Companies don't want to waste their time and money defending stuff like this, especially when they are clearly wrong. It's bad for business. They'd much rather settle, pay some money, and move on.

I don't think it works that way for class action suits, though.

[Nutria]

Bah effing humbug.

He should vote with his pocketbook and spread the word on social media, not rush to court like the greedy, litigious SOB that he obviously is.