Texas Pete's not made in Texas lawsuit (Truth in advertising)

[Drutt]

Next you'll all be telling me that Lucky Charms don't belong to a leprechaun.

[Biglog]

The main takeaway is that class action lawsuits in the US are often ridiculous. Any consumers in the lawsuit will be lucky to get a few dollars, so they aren't really driving this. It's lawyers looking for any reason to file, throwing lots of lawsuits against the wall seeing what sticks or which companies settle. The attorneys get paid, and even if 9 out of 10 frivolous lawsuits get thrown out, that's still a lot of $ for them. So these silly class action lawsuits are more lawyer funding drives than anything. It's the 2022 version of ambulance chasers.

As for how silly the lawsuit is, the lawyers don't really care. They just need a handful of people that agree to participate that they tell might get some money out of it someday. So any reason, even as ridiculous as this 'Texas Pete' thing, is enough to file and it sometimes works enough to get a company to settle. Same for lawsuits around 'you stole my song', when they are not even remotely similar. The original silly lawsuit that worked was the McD's hot coffee one saying that it was McDonald's fault for not warning customers that coffee could be hot (lol), and after that worked it spawned masses of lawyers looking to get rich quick using the same idea.

[Santti]

The main takeaway is that class action lawsuits in the US are often ridiculous. Any consumers in the lawsuit will be lucky to get a few dollars, so they aren't really driving this. It's lawyers looking for any reason to file, throwing lots of lawsuits against the wall seeing what sticks or which companies settle. The attorneys get paid, and even if 9 out of 10 frivolous lawsuits get thrown out, that's still a lot of $ for them. So these silly class action lawsuits are more lawyer funding drives than anything. It's the 2022 version of ambulance chasers.

As for how silly the lawsuit is, the lawyers don't really care. They just need a handful of people that agree to participate that they tell might get some money out of it someday. So any reason, even as ridiculous as this 'Texas Pete' thing, is enough to file and it sometimes works enough to get a company to settle. Same for lawsuits around 'you stole my song', when they are not even remotely similar. The original silly lawsuit that worked was the McD's hot coffee one saying that it was McDonald's fault for not warning customers that coffee could be hot (lol), and after that worked it spawned masses of lawyers looking to get rich quick using the same idea.

You ought to look into the hot coffee one a bit more carefully.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWh6Kw3ejQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_jaU5V9FUg

To start with. It was not some frivolous bullshit lawsuit, or maybe a get rich quick scheme. Not at all.

[Shadowferal]

The original silly lawsuit that worked was the McD's hot coffee one saying that it was McDonald's fault for not warning customers that coffee could be hot (lol), and after that worked it spawned masses of lawyers looking to get rich quick using the same idea.

That one wasn't silly.
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck (1912-2004),[2] a 79-year-old woman, suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. When McDonald's refused, Liebeck's attorney filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence.

Liebeck was taken to a hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[12] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg) (nearly 20 percent of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter.[13] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I will sue every Italian restaurant in town because clearly none of the food was made in Italy.

[Jotaux]

Theres nothing that tells me the hot sauce is made in texas, just that its endorsed by Texas Pete.

[s_bushido]

You ought to look into the hot coffee one a bit more carefully.

Yeah, I'm honestly surprised people still bring that one up. Just goes to show the effectiveness of big money propaganda, I guess...

[Flarelaine]

There's no grand international law, though. The only reason you can't make "champagne" at a Canadian vinyard is because of the Canadian law that restricts what can be called "Champagne". The law in France is completely irrelevant to that.

The EU has taken up the cause of protected origins, though, and is pushing them hard in trade deals.

Also this lawsuit is like suing because French fries aren't really from France.

[Kathandira]

The original silly lawsuit that worked was the McD's hot coffee one saying that it was McDonald's fault for not warning customers that coffee could be hot (lol), and after that worked it spawned masses of lawyers looking to get rich quick using the same idea.

This is a big ole mess of misinformation.

I think the second biggest tragedy of that case is the way the media lied about the entire thing.

[Forogil]

There's no grand international law, though. The only reason you can't make "champagne" at a Canadian vinyard is because of the Canadian law that restricts what can be called "Champagne". The law in France is completely irrelevant to that.

The non-existent grand international law is called the Lisbon System and currently 57 countries are members, including the EU, Mexico, Switzerland, Israel, and some others.

But the US - including Texas - seems generally against that idea and is thus not a member, and therefore it's unlikely that Canada will join.

[Daedius]

Lots of so called "Hot Sauces" aren't hot... false advertising! I'm gonna sue!

[Flarelaine]

Lots of so called "Hot Sauces" aren't hot... false advertising! I'm gonna sue!

I suspect most of them are sold at room temperature.

[PACOX]

Found out AriZona Tea isn't made in Arizona. Who wants in on the case?

[Lynarii]

I suspect most of them are sold at room temperature.

This reminds me of my childhood. One of my first part time jobs was at a small convenience store, it was a slow day so I was kinda putzing about stocking shelves and whatnot. And a guy came in and immediately started flipping out because I was "putting warm Pepsi in the cold Pepsi cooler" (note, I was putting the new bottles in the back, not the front) and how he was going to sue us for fraud. It was actually kinda terrifying at the time, since I'm a tiny girl and he was like 6'-something and easily double my weight.

Anecdotally, customers are idiots.

[Flarelaine]

This reminds me of my childhood. One of my first part time jobs was at a small convenience store, it was a slow day so I was kinda putzing about stocking shelves and whatnot. And a guy came in and immediately started flipping out because I was "putting warm Pepsi in the cold Pepsi cooler" (note, I was putting the new bottles in the back, not the front) and how he was going to sue us for fraud. It was actually kinda terrifying at the time, since I'm a tiny girl and he was like 6'-something and easily double my weight.

Anecdotally, customers are idiots.

They are! I've done my shift in retail, including stocking shelves. Funnily enough, the easiest part was moving the heavy stuff - "a pallet of this goes over there". No one is really questioning a man doing heavy lifting.

[tehdang]

Last time it was hot sauce, now it's Jack Daniels.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jack-da...-bad-spaniels/

"It is ironic that America's leading distiller of whiskey both lacks a sense of humor and does not recognize when it — and everyone else — has had enough," lawyers for Arizona-based VIP Products wrote the high court. They told the justices that Jack Daniel's has "waged war" against the company for "having the temerity to produce a pun-filled parody" of its bottle.

But Jack Daniel's lead attorney, Lisa Blatt, made no bones about the company's position in her filing.

"To be sure, everyone likes a good joke. But VIP's profit-motivated 'joke' confuses consumers by taking advantage of Jack Daniel's hard-earned goodwill," she wrote for the Louisville, Kentucky-based Brown-Forman Corp., Jack Daniel's parent company.

Blatt wrote that a lower court decision provides "near-blanket protection" to humorous trademark infringement. And she said it has "broad and dangerous consequences," pointing to children who were hospitalized after eating marijuana-infused products that mimicked candy packaging.

If VIP Products is allowed to confuse consumers with dog toys, "other funny infringers can do the same with juice boxes or marijuana-infused candy," Blatt wrote.

The toy is part of a line of VIP Products called Silly Squeakers that mimic liquor, beer, wine and soda bottles. They include Mountain Drool, which parodies Mountain Dew, and Heini Sniff'n, which parodies Heineken. A court in 2008 barred the company from selling its Budweiser parody, ButtWiper.

After the company began selling its Bad Spaniels toy in 2014, Jack Daniel's told the company to stop, but VIP went to court to be allowed to continue to sell its product. Jack Daniel's won the first round in court but lost an appeal. The case reached the Supreme Court at an earlier stage, but the justices didn't bite.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Last time it was hot sauce, now it's Jack Daniels.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jack-da...-bad-spaniels/

I don't see what the one case has to do with the other. The original case is about "false advertising"... this is about trademark infringement.

[tehdang]

I don't see what the one case has to do with the other. The original case is about "false advertising"... this is about trademark infringement.

Believing the consumer is misled to believe an untruth (Made in Texas) is intimately related to believing the consumer is misled by an imitation brand (this Jack Daniels is actually the Jack Daniels you know).

[callipygoustp]

I don't see what the one case has to do with the other. The original case is about "false advertising"... this is about trademark infringement.

I don't get it either.

[gondrin]

Believing the consumer is misled to believe an untruth (Made in Texas) is intimately related to believing the consumer is misled by an imitation brand (this Jack Daniels is actually the Jack Daniels you know).

Thing about trademark infringement is that a company has to defend against all cases of it or they lose the ability to defend their trademark in future cases. This is one of the reasons why companies like Disney will go hard after people for using their trademarks.