Comments on: Viacom, Kellogg threatened with suit in Massachusetts

By: Overlawyered

Overlawyered — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:07:50 +0000

“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…

By: Ted

Ted — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:31:08 +0000

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.

By: Todd and In Charge

Todd and In Charge — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:23:50 +0000

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.

By: Shane Kirk

Shane Kirk — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:07:48 +0000

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!

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:39:55 +0000

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).

By: Walter E. Wallis

Walter E. Wallis — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:42:35 +0000

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.

By: TuCents

TuCents — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:33:11 +0000

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…

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:51:36 +0000

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.

By: Frank

Frank — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:31:14 +0000

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.

By: Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:07:13 +0000

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…