Amid much hoopla, the Center for Science in the Public Interest had filed a suit on behalf of a New Jersey man claiming Denny’s hadn’t adequately warned its meals were salty. Now an appeals court has upheld the dismissal of the suit’s consumer-fraud theory, meaning that the complainant would be able to proceed only by proving actual personal injury [Abnormal Use, Home News Tribune via NJLRA; earlier here, here, etc.]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
{ 4 comments }
Oooh, maybe CSPI will take my case. I wanna sue Denny’s for serving us vegetarian omelets cooked in bacon grease in Roswell NM 2008. I don’t know if it was too salty tho; the eggs were nestled in a pool of brownish grease with itty bitty fragments of bacon which is what cued me into knowing not to even taste it.
The fact that Denny’s food tastes VERY salty could not have possibly tipped the guy off that there was salt in the food.
What next? They will require the boxes of salt to have the following warning: WARNING CONTAINS SALT
@VMS in England the milk containers say: Warning: contains milk.
@VMS EU regs dictate that indeed, at least with a lot of things.
Cartons of milk “warning, product contains milk”
Package of peanuts “may contain peanuts”
the list goes on and on.
Of course that’s from the minds of the same people who thought it a good idea to dictate the minimum and maximum curvature of bananas fit for human consumption.
Comments on this entry are closed.