T Nation

Nation of Suers Not Doers


#1

This is great especially the last line.


#2

I used to watch Red Eye, its a really good show. They have some really hot babes on it sometimes. But they also have that snooty, self-righteous, condescending, piece of "I love the sound of my voice SO MUCH" Dr. Mark Lamont Hill on there quite often.

Otherwise, it's a funny show.


#3

love red eye, but comes on too damn late.


#4

I see what you did there.


#5

So, because of too many frivolaus lawsuits, this guy thinks "we're now living in a world where you can't make a living at all."

Look, people have to quit bitching about frivolous lawsuits. Equal protection under the law along our access to the courts is what separates free countries from dictatorships. It's the price we pay for liberty.

There will always be frivolous lawsuits. That's the beauty -- these things get duked out in the courts, and the judicial decision can be appealed if necessary. And if you can prove that the plaintiff deliberately wasted your time/money with a frivolous, unwinnable case, then you can countersue. Sometimes bad decisions are made, of course, but limiting access to the courts is not the solution at all.

Regarding this case, I looked into it. (Fox News is a joke. You can never get the full story. Just synopsis spin bits.)

It turns out that it Applebee's wasn't being sued by "a customer." It was a class action lawsuit charging Applebee's lying about fat content in its meals. ABC news tested "low fat" Applebee's meals in seven different cities and found that the fat content was double or triple what was advertised. In one meal, the content was advertised as 6g of fat, but contained 18g.

If you knowingly lie about your product or service, this constitutes fraud, and you should be tried in a court of law.

This was food found in the low calorie weight watchers section of their menu. These section is aimed at people concerned/conscious of watching their caloric intake.

If a protein powder advertised to have 20 grams a scoop and turned out to only have 5, would you be right to file suit? You damn well would be. I would hope you win, too. Anyone who says you are a suer and not a doer for this is full of shit. Helping enforce laws against fraud is definitely "doing." Especially when it applies to a corporation that effects the lives of many people.


#6

Good post. My only issue is that I don't think any one particular person should get rich off of being the first one to catch a company doing something wrong, especially when what the company did didn't have a huge affect on their life.


#7

err. effect. not affect.


#8

Sloth, what did I do there, I don't see it?

I was serious, and now you done gone and confused this here R-Can-San.


#9

It's a class action lawsuit. You are obligated by law to try to contact all who were harmed and alert them as to what you are doing. The penalties will be divided among those who chose to participate.


#10

I thought you were making a joke. You know, about a show called Red Eye, being on too late. Heh heh he...ahem. Maybe it's just me.


#11

Spell "I-Hop" and add "ness" at the end. (These are the types of jokes I make, none of that intellectual stuff)


#12

And if were on CNN or MSNBC, they'd get Olbermann to host it and it'd be called "Brown Eye", 'cause it'd be GAY!

Just kidding, I had to get that in there.

EDIT: And because Olbermann is an asshole.


#13

Why not?

I hope some people make a job out of it.


#14

I echo what's been said. Is their food actually low fat? Everyone is responsible for what they put in their mouth. But misrepresenting the nutritional contents of their food is much worse than saying nothing at all. Then everyone eats at their own peril.

If they purport a meal to have 15 grams of fat and 400 calories or whatever the hell they say, then they damn well deserve repercussions if it's 60 grams of fat and 900 calories. Otherwise, people TRYING to take responsibility over what they put in their mouths CAN'T because of the company's lies.


#15

QFT

My parent's for example are trying to eat healthier, but they really don't do their research. They would be EASILY misguided by an improper label.

They would be extremely proud of themselves for cutting down on calories, when they aren't really. And then lack of results will kill people's motivation. REPERCUSSIONS!!!


#16

Yes, but there's a HUGE difference between making a packaged product in a factory to sell at a supermarket, and cooking at a restaurant.

I almost guarantee that the Applebee's recipe was developed in a test kitchen where EVERYTHING was carefully measured. The problem arises when you ask a minimally trained cook to replicate this recipe on a busy Saturday night. He doesn't measure how much oil he's using to fry something, or how much cheese he's using, he just throws things together.

Now some lawyer will make a killing off this bit of stupidity.


#17

It's not stupidity. If the deamands of 'a busy night in the kitchen' result in THREE times the fat and countless more calories being in meals than Applebees claims, it can't be allowed to make those nutritional claims at all.


#18

What if they are forced to make such claims by the government though it is next to impossible and are sued then?


#19

But that is not the case. And to my knowledge, all such proposals to make this law are limited to true fast food restaurants with a much higher level of standardization than Applebees anyway.


#20

Jesus Christ, all of us here prep our own food. A few calories or grams of fat is one thing, 3x is something else. None of us are ignorant of how easy it would be to properly make something healthy. Christ, a few measuring cup in the kitchen would be fine. And when I was a kid I worked as a cook in an "applebees" type restaurant, so I know it can be done. Heck, that's what prep cooks are for.

Also, making a mistake once and a while is completely different than constantly making the "mistake." One time at 3x the amounts because some 20yo didn't really know how to do it is one thing. 90+% of the time doing something wrong is something else. In other words, there's a difference between a mistake and purposefully being misleading.