Wakefield, Mass., mother Sherri Carlson doesn’t like the commercials on the Nickelodeon network or the fact that Nickelodeon characters appear on boxes of cereal that she disapproves of. Thus (helped by a couple of nanny-state activist groups), rather than cancelling her cable bill, turning off the tv, or saying “No” to her three children, she’s announced plans to sue Viacom and Kellogg for billions of dollars under Massachusetts “consumer fraud” law, sending the required “intent to sue” letter. (Libby Quaid, AP, Jan. 19; Sarah Ellison and Janet Adamy, “Activists Plan to Sue Viacom and Kellogg Over Ads to Children”, Wall $treet Journal, Jan. 19; Hit & Run blog Jan. 19 Sullum and Gillespie). As Sullum notes, the reality-satire lag time is now down to a week.
Other discussion of the misuse of “consumer fraud” laws to interfere with free speech: Jul. 1, 2003; Nov. 30, 2004. As Eric Berlin points out, Ms. Carlson doesn’t even buy the sweetened cereal in question, so she’s asking for billions because she has to say “No” to her children. More on the problem of the injury-free class action at the AEI Liability Project.
10 Comments
LEAVE SPONGEBOB ALONE
The food police are going after Bikini Bottom! An advocacy group wants companies to stop marketing junk food to children. They’re targeting two titans in a multi-million dollar lawsuit. They’re going after the companies behind Tony the Tiger and Sponge…
Apparently the “injury” suffered by these parents is that their children pester them to buy the alleged “junk food”.
TTBOMK, there are no allegations of obesity or other adverse health conditions attributed to the children of the plaintiffs.
I note in an article read elsewhere that among the goals of the litigation is essentially to prevent manufacturers of children’s foods from advertising them to children.
I can’t wait to see the CBS evening news sponsored by Sunny-D or Frosted Flakes.
As an advertising connected anecdote, i remember pestering my mother to buy me Popeye brand canned spinach. She tried to tell me that I wouldn’t like it, but i insisted. I didn’t like it.
I suppose this would be acceptable advertising to children, since spinach is healthy and the only result was a can of wasted food and a saddened child.
This suit is doomed to fail, because the cartoon character they are targeting (SpongeBob) is too popular, and even the people who think SpongeBob is gay will rally to his cause. If they want a chance to win, they need to tackle a cereal manufacturer with a real product liability vulnerability, like Cap’n Crunch. Ever eat that stuff dry? After about 4 mouthfuls it abrades the roof of your mouth off.
Legal (Monkey) Business as Usual
For more proof that we need some sort of loser-pays system in civil liability law, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and others have threatened Viacom and Kellogg with a billion dollar lawsuit over TV commercials. Their demand lette…
Punitive damages should require the same level of proof a criminal charge requires, and the punitive damages should go to the state. Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord. Punishment is mine, sayeth the State. Sounds good to me.
The problem with punitive damamges is that the money always goes SOMEWHERE, and anywhere it goes, it provides that entity with reason to encourage punitive damamges. Giving the money to the state is thus approximately as bad as the current situation (possibly worse, as the state would then have incentive to lower the requirements for punitives).
WOW! Isn’t it amazing that these parents have not included themselves as a defendant as well as a plaintiff.
Let me explain: They claim they and their child were harmed when the parent bought the Kellogg product. Well the child was harmed also by the parent action of purchasing said roduct. They should be more liable for the damages since they could have used proper judgement and read the labels before purchasing such products to determine if the were not nutritionally sound and prior to feeding to their children (see they committed to acts purchase and then feeding).
I just hope that they get a judge with commen sense who will throw this case out!
I see this case as about marketing injurious crap to a defenseless population. Hoping that the average parent is or can be immune to such pre-teen marketing is not consistent with empirical evidence or conventional marketing theory. There are several excellent books on this well-established effect of sophisticated and comprehensive advertising campaigns, particularing All Consuming Images. Further, time, place and manner restrictions are a part of the 1st Amendment, that’s why Janet Jackson’ boob is banned from network tv. Once that principle is acknowledged, there is no “free speech” right to use sophisticated marketing techniques to create the desire for young children to consume crap. And it’s always fun to dropkick the lawyers, but the lawyers here are a public interest group seeking only 10k in fees.
Leaving aside the fact that parents can resist this stuff (mine sure never bought me sugared cereal, not that that kept me from growing up to be obese), even if one believes that this is a good policy choice that doesn’t implicate the First Amendment, then the solution is to get the legislature to pass a law. It’s only because democracy has rejected such impositions on choice that the lawyers are seeking to use the courts to accomplish what they cannot accomplish at the ballot-box.
The lawyers are seeking more than $10,000 — they’re asking for a billion dollars to settle.
“No one is being force fed soda”
My op-ed on the litigation against Big Cola (see Feb. 2) draws an L.A. Times reader letter (Feb. 7). Also welcome Andrew Sullivan readers (Jan. 27). More by Sullivan: “Hey, these adverts are making me…