Comments on: Why wacky warnings matter

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:53:58 +0000

McDonald's didn't lower the temperature of its coffee. And, by a happy coincidence, today's New York Times details the increasing competition between McDonald's and Starbucks.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:05:56 +0000

That doesn’t answer the question. You seem to argue that the temperature McDonald’s reduced its coffee too caused them a competitive disadvantage against Starbucks. Do you have any support for that claim other than your personal observation? Are you arguing that McDonald’s no longer serves “hot” coffee?

I guess I’ve never equated a full service fast food place with Starbucks, which often doesn’t even have a drive in window. It appears though, that McDonald’s is winning the battle in terms of revenues and stores, which would further belie your claim.

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:50:07 +0000

Starbucks is successful because they serve a product people want. People want hot coffee; if people didn’t want their coffee hot, Starbucks would be at a competitive disadvantage.

Your other question is easily solved by a Google search for countless examples of business commentators noting that McDonald’s and Starbucks are competitors if it wasn’t already patently obvious.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 01:13:23 +0000

“and today Starbucks has gone from a local shop to a dominant national chain, despite prices several times higher than McDonald’s, because they serve their coffee hotter than McDonald’s served it to Stella Liebeck,”

Ted, I noted the above statement in your embedded link to the McDonald’s coffee case. Are you arguing that Starbucks’ rise is due to the temperature of their coffee? Or even that McDonalds and Starbucks are competitors to any degree?

Do you have any support for that first claim if so?

By: markm

markm — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 12:18:21 +0000

And of course, the FDA required every one of those 157 boxes of data...

By: CNS

CNS — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:40:53 +0000

When I read “treat all of their adult customers like infants on pain of liability” I first thought “adult customers like infants on pain medication”.

Apt, really.

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:22:40 +0000

Texas Lawyer magazine (Aug. 30, 2005):

To show how Merck overwhelmed the FDA, Lanier filled the courtroom with 157 boxes of materials Merck had submitted to the agency in 1999 to get approval of the drug. According to the Houston Chronicle, Lanier kept stacking boxes until Lowry said she could no longer see the jury. Santanello said that Merck gave the data to the FDA on several electronic disks but Lanier had made his point. “It was more of his send-a-message theme to the jury,” Blue says. “No one but the jury had the power to tell Merck it couldn’t act irresponsibly.”

(Keep in mind that a year later, Lanier successfully argued for punitive damages in a New Jersey case by arguing that Merck had omitted from those 157 boxes a piece of statistical analysis redundant with material in those boxes.) According to the New York Times' interviews with jurors (Bill Dawson and Alex Berenson, “Working through a Decision Cut in Shades of Deep Gray,” New York Times, August 20, 2005), this was persuasive: one juror complained that the warning label on Vioxx was too long, so it was hard to see the cardiovascular data: "You had to dig through three layers to see it." My working paper on Vioxx litigation needs updating, but it's a good overview on the subject.

By: jb

jb — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:48:17 +0000

Do you have a link to the claim about Mark Lanier? A skeptical pro-trial lawyer relative of mine wants further proof.

By: Baronger

Baronger — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 12:15:12 +0000

With the Viox situation it is a clear case of Viox not giving a warning that, “failure to read all the warnings might result in injury.”

By: David

David — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:30:20 +0000

I think the “Do not iron” warning applies to tickets printed on thermal paper. Heat turns the paper black, making it difficult to claim your prize!