Comments on: More “fruity” cereal class actions https://www.overlawyered.com/2009/10/more-fruity-cereal-class-actions/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:54:37 +0000 hourly 1 By: KB https://www.overlawyered.com/2009/10/more-fruity-cereal-class-actions/comment-page-1/#comment-72285 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:54:37 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=13967#comment-72285 The update link says it even better. The lawyer is the one looking for the cash and he’s a nitwit.

]]> By: Bob Lipton https://www.overlawyered.com/2009/10/more-fruity-cereal-class-actions/comment-page-1/#comment-72276 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:22:00 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=13967#comment-72276 Did Puffa Puffa Rice conain sufficient Puffa Puffa?

Bob

]]> By: VMS https://www.overlawyered.com/2009/10/more-fruity-cereal-class-actions/comment-page-1/#comment-72271 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:05:56 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=13967#comment-72271 If one is a big enough moron to believe that Froot Loops contains fruit, there is not much the law can do to help! [I’m sure it does however contain “Froot”–it is implied on the box].

This is not the first lawsuit on this topic for Froot Loops (formally Fruit Loops) and Kellogg. From Wikipedia: (I did not run the case on Westlaw):

In 1959, following the failure of Kellogg’s OK’s, Kellogg’s re-purposed the equipment to create the Fruit Loops, Apple Jacks, and Puffa Puffa Rice cereals. A lawsuit was filed less than six months into the distribution of Fruit Loops by Renee Paxton in Paxton v. Kellogg’s[citation needed]. In the case, Paxton claimed that the branding was misleading, as the product didn’t actually contain any fruit. The case was settled out of court, with Kellogg’s agreeing to rebrand what was already a popular cereal as “Froot Loops”.

When I see such moronic lawsuits, I always keep open the possibility that they are somehow collusive suits for the company to get nationwide advertising for the cost of an index number and a few hours of legal fees.

]]>