Comments on: Shock! “Double Stuf Oreos Don’t Actually Have Double The Creme” (Update: co. denies)

By: dustbury.com » Do you need that much Stuf?

dustbury.com » Do you need that much Stuf? — Thu, 22 Aug 2013 02:04:49 +0000

[…] Says Walter Olson at Overlawyered: [W]ho would like to predict whether some law firm will file an intended class action over this problem within the next twelve months, on a scale where zero indicates “completely confident that there will not be such a lawsuit” and 10 indicates “completely confident that there will be”? […]

By: Bart Torvik

Bart Torvik — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:12:50 +0000

Maybe instead of understuffing the Double Stuffs they’ve been overstuffing the original oreos all these years.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 22:01:50 +0000

Was there a lawsuit behind the “uncooked weight when frozen” statement that’s always appended to McDonald’s “Quarter Pounder”?

By: wfjag

wfjag — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:41:39 +0000

@ Michael W.
“BTW, Peter K., the Doublemint marketing insinuates that to “Double Your Pleasure” you have to be a twin.

P.S. I strongly believe that at least one of the four horsemen will be an attorney.”

Actually, they are 2 sets of twins. All are JD/CPAs, but only 1 of them works for the IRS. None of them like kittens.

By: Katie

Katie — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:16:53 +0000

This can’t be!

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:41:09 +0000

Max, I like you guts stepping out. Bravo.

But I disagree simply because the size of the cookies are in plain view and because we are talking about 1.86x here. I think that is close enough.

Peter, you assume because it happened before with one product that it is a “certainty.” I don’t think this is logical or reasonable and I don’t even think your ideological brothers agree with you.

By: Sword-wielding, knife-throwing man lost it over missing can of shrimp - The Prevailing Ethos

Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:02:34 +0000

[…] Double Stuf Oreos Don’’ Actually Have Double The Crème […]

By: L. C. Burgundy

L. C. Burgundy — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 05:37:25 +0000

I’m at a 6 on the lawsuit potential, personally. Good opportunity to negotiate a worthless remedy for a huge class with a tidy payday for the attorneys though, so maybe make that a 6.5 or a 7.

I would like to see a bigger sample size though. Also, his math may be assuming all the wafers weigh the same across the styles, which I’m not sure is the case?

By: Bumper

Bumper — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 05:13:21 +0000

Possible company response:

There was actually twice as much by volume at the time of the initial squirting, but that because of squashing during packaging, or settling during shipping (pick one) it just appears to be less when opened.

There was twice as much by weight at the of squirting, but the famously dry cookies on either side absorbed the juices creating the difference.

By: Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 03:19:57 +0000

Everyone will throw tomatoes at me, but: is it really okay for a national company to call a mass-produced, sold-by-weight-and-volume product a double when it is routinely well below that?

Is there something preventing Oreo from either getting the size of their mass-produced product right, or, failing that, describing it accurately? If I paid only 86% of the price on the box, I’m sure Oreo and the supermarket would be upset, and I’d be prosecuted for shoplifting. But it’s okay when a big corporation does it?

I know, we’re in a post-modern, post-ironic age in which everyone assumes it’s totally okay for a “double” product to really be an “86% of the way to a double” product, but what if we lived in a world where specific statements of quantity meant something? What’s next, “half off” meaning 33% off? How about “buy 1, get 1 free” where the second one is at 25% price? How about a gallon of milk that’s actually, you know, 3.5 quarts. What’s a little difference here and there? (Quite a lot, when you sell millions of them and the difference is always in your favor.)

If Oreo had called it “super” or “extra” or, perhaps, “mega,” no one would bat an eye. But “double?” If you don’t want to be held responsible for a “double,” don’t call it that.