Taco Bell sued

Beanbag said:
Beef that lowers your cholesterol? Ooops! I think the oatmeal claim is what go Cheerios in trouble.

Beanbag
Click to expand...

I thought oats could reduce cholesterol? Don't tell me that's woo? Not after all the goddamn museli I've eaten over the last few months
album.php
 
Update:

Taco Bell urges rejection of "seasoned beef" suit
Wed Mar 2, 2011

(Reuters) - Taco Bell Corp has urged a court to throw out an "enormously disparaging" lawsuit that claims its "seasoned beef" taco and burrito filling has too little beef to be labeled as such.
(...)
"This enormously disparaging complaint is insufficient on its face," Taco Bell said in a filing late Tuesday with the federal court in Los Angeles.

A hearing is set for April 25. A spokeswoman for Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles PC, an Alabama law firm representing Obney, declined to comment.
Click to expand...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-tacobell-lawsuit-idUSTRE7214K020110302
 
mortimer said:
The lawsuit has been withdrawn.

http://www.tacobell.com/company/newsreleasearticle/Law-Firm-Withdraws-Class-Action-Lawsuit
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I was intermittently checking, but not daily.

Think anyone who thought the claim was valid will come back to the thread?

Here's the law firm spin:

Lawsuit against Taco Bell resolved

"From the inception of this case, we stated that if Taco Bell would make certain changes regarding disclosure and marketing of its 'seasoned beef' product, the case could be dismissed," said Dee Miles of Montgomery based law firm Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., one of the attorneys for Amanda Obney.

"We engaged in discussions with the company representatives over the last couple of months about the lawsuit and the company's responsive action to the suit," he said. "We accepted Taco Bell's invitation to confer with company representatives and share information and ideas about the issues in the case. As a result of the lawsuit, changes in marketing and product disclosure were made by the company, allowing us to dismiss the case."
Click to expand...

http://www.beasleyallen.com/news/Lawsuit-against-Taco-Bell-resolved/

Taco Bell's version (from your link):

After reviewing the facts, the lawyers for the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit. No money or other value was exchanged between the parties, and Taco Bell is not making any changes to its products or advertising.
Click to expand...
:D
 
Emet said:
Thanks for that. I was intermittently checking, but not daily.

Think anyone who thought the claim was valid will come back to the thread?
Click to expand...

Haven't one or two of them since been banned? Don't think we'll be seeing him/them, call it a hunch. :p
 
BenBurch said:
Were I CEO of Taco Bell, I wouldn't have been so nice.

I would have sued the law firm out of existence for Disparagement Of Trade.
Click to expand...

Since Taco Bell is owned by Yum Brands, with a net income of >$1 B, I would imagine that either from a public relations or economic POV, it's not worth it. And as IANAL, I wouldn't even want to hazard a guess as to whether or not they would have a case.
 
Last edited:
This whole thing was great free publicity for taco bell. They handled it well and I bet that it's been a net win for them. Damn, I'm getting hungry for a taco right now just talking about it (but I ain't gonna get it from them!).
 
knew it would. the woman had no case. lawyers were scum to try and bring the case forward, and I love the spin they are putting on it instead of saying "Our client was a kook and had no case to begin with, but we didn't mind taking her money".

Yes, Taco Bell has done nothing to change their advertising and their products.

Now, let's see if their new Doritos taco shell will past taste tests
 
Arus808 said:
knew it would. the woman had no case. lawyers were scum to try and bring the case forward, and I love the spin they are putting on it instead of saying "Our client was a kook and had no case to begin with, but we didn't mind taking her money".
Click to expand...

IIRC, they were not paid. They were not asking for a specific dollar amount, and probably took it on a contingency basis.
 
Emet said:
IIRC, they were not paid. They were not asking for a specific dollar amount, and probably took it on a contingency basis.
Click to expand...

...and obviously skimped on the research before accepting the case.
 
BenBurch said:
Assumed they could settle out of court and not have to prove anything is my guess.
Click to expand...

Then I'm especially glad Taco Bell didn't buckle... a good example of cooperative rational behavior. Almost a prisoner's dilemma scenario--if Taco Bell buckles, they save money in the short term, but more people are willing to file frivolous lawsuits. If they fight when they have a case, it costs them more, but discourages bad faith litigation and everyone wins except unethical lawyers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom