Judges, the sticklers, still expect it to be done the other way round if you’re going to be the named plaintiff in a class action. This one was a claim of improper labeling filed against the Arizona iced tea company by attorney Michael Halbfish as well as the well-known New Jersey firm of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer. [Dan Fisher, Forbes; opinion in Coyle v. Hornell Brewing, PDF, courtesy Sean Wajert]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
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.
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.
{ 1 comment }
To me this is obviously a scam. If the lead plaintiff were truly concerned about the labeling, she would have read the label before making a purchase. I also think 99% of the people who read the label after the fact would simply cease buying the product, or at worst, ask for a refund and be done with it.
I suspect that class action cases like this are quite common in that lawyers seek a plaintiff rather than the other way around. Is it even logical that someone purchase iced tea and then look for a lawyer? What makes this case unique is the carelessness of the lawyers.
Comments on this entry are closed.