Parent Seeks to End Placing of Toys in McDonald’s Happy Meals

Submitted by Bob Jacobson on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 08:46

 

Parent Seeks to End Placing of Toys in McDonald’s Happy Meals
 
On April 19, 2011, Dan Levine wrote an article for Reuters entitled “MacDonald’s Grimaces at Happy Meal Lawsuit.” After reading the article, I would describe the suit as “Litigation of the Absurd.” According to the article, the lawsuit was brought by Monet Parham, a Sacramento, CA mother of two who is seeking to end the long time practice of MacDonald’s offering toys with its kids meals, thereby luring the children into eating food which in turn makes them fat. MacDonald’s is defending the suit on the basis that parents have the last say in what they buy for their children to eat. While Ms. Parham admits she often tells her children no when they ask for Happy Meals, she contends that the offering of toys in the meals constitutes a misleading and unfair business practice. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nutrition advocacy group, is representing Ms. Parham according to the article.
This quote directly from the article sets forth the legal issues involved in the case:
Should Parham's lawsuit be allowed, it would spawn a host of other problematic legal proceedings, McDonald's said.
"In short, advertising to children any product that a child asks for but the parent does not want to buy would constitute an unfair trade practice," the company said.
Stephen Gardner, litigation attorney for the public interest group, said McDonald's is using a cookie cutter approach to dismissing the lawsuit, with one key difference.
"What is different about this motion is that McDonald's has chosen to blame the victim -- saying that it's all Monet Parham's fault if she doesn't force her daughter to ignore the onslaught of McDonald's marketing messages," Gardner said.
"McDonald's makes a lot of money by going around parents direct to kids, and it wants to continue with that strategy.”
The article also indicated that most companies have pledged not to market directly to children, but the industry is left to police itself. The industry has also argued that government attempts to limit advertising encroach on free speech protections.
The proposed class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is Parham v. McDonald's Corporation et al, 11-511. (Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco, additional reporting by Lisa Baertlein in Los Angeles; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)
 
My Observations
 
I have to look at the situation from the perspective of a parent and grandparent. If my memory serves me correctly, it seems that more often than not, the toy was the main thing my kids wanted; not the meal. I seem to recall a fairly good number of times when half the meal was unfinished and discarded. Maybe that’s why none of my kids developed weight problems from eating Happy Meals. It also seems reasonable to me that the option of healthier choices in food items pretty much negates any complaints parents might have about the lure of toys that end up with kids consuming food that will make them fat. The bottom line is that there are a myriad number of advertising messages we deal with on a daily basis; some good, some bad.  We should be allowed those choices and to deal with the consequences they bring.  Perhaps a warning label on the Happy Meal box would be appropriate.  How about: WARNING: Consuming excessive amounts of burgers and fries (or any other fatty foods) may cause increased weight gain or other unhealthy conditions in children and adults.  Please use product sparingly. Or maybe just: WARNING: Eat Responsibly.
 
Bob Jacobson is a personal injury attorney in Boise, ID