Food Court Rulings 2018: Case Histories
World Food Court at The Hague
Mrs. Dalrymple vs Gerber Baby Food
Mrs. Dalrymple complained her baby’s strained peas were too chunky.
The World Food Court found in favor of Mrs. D. agreeing that indeed the peas were too chunky. To remedy the defect, the Food Court issued Gerber a restraining order.
Mall of America Food Court vs KFC
Mall of America Food Court found Kentucky Fried Chicken guilty of frequent and regular battery of its fried chicken. Exasperated KFC’s lawyers responded by asking the food court, “How else are we supposed to coat the damn birds if we can’t batter them?” Mall of America Food Court was unswayed by the argument and ordered KFC to pay $1 million to fund a Home for Battered Chicken.
Boise Food Court vs MacDonald’s Restaurant Corporation
Boise Food Court accused MacDonald’s of perpetrating repeated a salt on its French Fries. MacDonald’s contends the sodium-enhancing act was consensual and essential to the flavor of its deep-fried spuds. Boise Food Court disagreed and issued a No So Dium Order of Cessation.
Sarasota Food Court vs Minute Maid Orange Juice
Sarasota Food Court found Minute Maid Orange Juice’s pulp very thinly scattered and generally unfocused. As a remedy the Sarasota Food Court required that Minute Maid Orange Juice concentrate.
Talladega Race Track Food Court vs The Milk Advisory Board
The City Fathers of Talladega requested the Milk Advisory Board to change the labeling on their cartons from Homogenized Milk to Heterogenized Milk. They cited a citizenry “uncomfortable” drinking from anything with the word “Homo” on it.
The Milk Advisory Board summarily refused the remedy claiming the Talladega Food Court was acting lactose intolerantly.
Milwaukee County Stadium Food Court vs Miller Brewing Company
Issued an injunction barring Miller Brewing Company from referring to its calorie-reduced beer as “Lite.” Milwaukee Food Court required Miller to call this diluted beer what it really is: Diet Beer. “What’s next,” Miller’s lawyers complained, “making it a requirement to pronounce each letter in the name ‘Worcestershire Sauce’?”
Yankee Stadium Food Court vs Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream
In the case of Yankee Stadium Food Court vs Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream, the Food Court held that Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream’s in-stadium advertising claim that “You scream, I scream, we all scream for ice cream,” was extravagant, fatuous and irredeemably self-serving – even though the ice cream itself was not self-serve (a legally semantic thicket).
After Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream pleaded nolo contendre to overstating their case of patrons “screaming” for ice cream, the Court required Haagen-Dazs to tone themselves down. Specifically the remedy barred Haagen-Dazs from claiming anything more than “Ice cream is a desirable treat that perhaps many, but not all enjoy. And although consumers of the frozen confection might request it in a voluble manner, rarely is it ordered while screaming.”
Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream is appealing the ruling to a higher court: The Court of Public Opinion.
In summation, I don’t know how nutritious this amuse bouche was, but I do know one thing: It is food for thought.