Aided and abetted by the reliably malign “Center for Science in the Public Interest,” a California mother, Monet Parham, has filed a class action suit against McDonald’s. The problem? Happy Meals (already in the dog house, of course, for crimes against “food justice“). According to Ms. Parham:
“I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald’s should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience,” Parham said. “But as other busy, working moms and dads know, we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”
Other parents might feel that way about Ms. Parham.
Take it away, Walter Olson:
You’re probably wondering: How is this grounds for a lawsuit? No one forced Parham to take her daughters to McDonald’s, buy them that particular menu item, and sit by as they ate every last French fry in the bag (if they did).
No, she’s suing because when she said no, her kids became disagreeable and “pouted” – for which she wants class action status. If she gets it, McDonald’s isn’t the only company that should worry. Other kids pout because parents won’t get them 800-piece Lego sets, Madame Alexander dolls and Disney World vacations. Are those companies going to be liable too?
The center’s longtime shtick is to complain that businesses like McDonald’s, rather than our own choices, are to blame for rising obesity. So let’s take Happy Meals as an example. When you buy one, you get a string of choices. Milk or soda? (Is that really a hard choice for a parent worried about nutrition?) You can swap out the fattening French fries for “apple dippers” with caramel sauce and plenty of kid appeal. But your choices do not end there. If you think the scoop of fries is too big for a kid serving, you can tell the kid to share it with the grownup on hand, namely you. (You’re the grownup. You make the rules.) You can even, shocking as this sounds, toss the surplus French fries into the disposal bin.
But then are you really a “grown-up”? Not according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an organization that quite clearly sees adults as somewhat elderly children, incapable of making decisions for themselves or their families.
Fries tonight, I think.
I’d add that this arrogant and vexatious lawsuit is yet another reminder of how some “loser pays” (the English rule under which the loser pays some of the legal costs of both sides) would be a very useful addition to the American legal system.
If McDonald's wasn't so stunningly horrible to eat, I'd go support them tonight with some hard-earned dollars.
Either that, or I should look into a suit against Microsoft and Electronic Arts for destroying the attention span of the American teenager. Since I have a couple of them, it ought to be extra-lucrative!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis makes me want to go out and get a happy meal. What a RIDICULOUS mother! Yikes!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“But as other busy, working moms and dads know, we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes that so much harder to do."
*****************************
You can't even decide for yourself without outside help whether your family is going to eat at a fast food restaurant?
How can anybody have so little dignity?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI never took my children even once to McDonald's when they were little. When they eventually went there on a school outing they hated it, because their eating habits had already been formed. The funny thing is, we have gone there now that they are older, and McDonald's has much improved. My nineteen-year-old son loves their salads.
All this is to say -- what a kook, and an incompetent mother to boot. And, yes, we should certainly have the English system whereby the loser pays. What an injustice the American system creates.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously, where does it end? I want to get rid of cable (ridiculous how much we've become accustomed to paying for that idiot box) - should I keep it because my kids are whining that they are going to lose access to their shows? Maybe I should sue the big networks since we can't get them over the air in my town. If my kids want an X-Box or fashionable clothes, etc., etc., etc. should I just buy it and sue the companies? Maybe we should just sue Visa and Mastercard for enabling us to buy whatever we want and run up our consumer debt. After all, if they didn't make it so easy...
Bottom line, be a parent. You're doing your kids no good if you can't say no. They're going to hear it when they grow up. A lot.
What's going to keep this nation from running off the rails when the generation that has never been told "no" has to compete in the workplace?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe tragedy here is Ms. Parham has reproduced. Holmes was wrong. One generation of imbeciles is enough. Having our tax dollars support this moonbat is an outrage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHer objection isn't even about the meal, it's about the advertising: "I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”
Aside from the fact that "without her permission" ignores the fact that she should exercise some control over her children's media consumption if she doesn't like them being exposed to ads, would Parham agree that parents may sue if their kids see ads for toys, clothes, books, movies, cell phones, etc. and want their parents to buy them those things? If not, why not?
Kids were pouting and nagging their parents for stuff long before Ray Kroc & Co. came along. It seems that her most basic gripe is that her kids annoy her, and someone should pay her for having to put up with them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeing a parent is such hard work - is some legal help (and a lot of money to boot) really such a big deal?
After all, it's "for the children". Just like Ma Obama's food program.
The problem with kids today are parents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've never been sure about the effect of the English rule (loser pays) since there are jurisdictions where stupid, frivolous, groundless lawsuits lead to generous jury awards, and the plaintiffs and their lawyers, knowing this, would not be deterred by the rule, but instead would view it as merely another item of damages that they will collect from the defendant when he, unjustly, loses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy Mom never let me have a Daisy Red Ryder with the compass in the stock and this thing which tells time.
We should sue. 'Tis the season!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou'll shoot your eye out, gullyborg.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd feel better about a "loser pays" system if I thought there were no judge/jury on earth who would rule in favor of Ms. Parham. It'd sure suck if McD's lost the suit and costs, to boot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGov. Perry here (in Texas) has put forward a bill for Loser Pays to continue our Tort Reform, which has reduced medical care and insurance costs.
It's a good plan, it will probably go through.
BTW, I hear we're going to start immigration control from other states--too many liberals want to live here and corrupt the parts of Texas that are still independent thinkers. Look at Houston--the influx from you northern folks (yankees is the generic term) during the 80s "ruint" the city!
The last is just wishful hoping.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis woman is pathetic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShe is not only a mother:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMonet Parham-Lee is an employee of the California Department of Public Health. Monet Parham-Lee works in the “Cancer Prevention and Nutrition Section” of the California Department of Public Health.
IT seems that the secret for loser pays is the if the client can't afford it the Lawyer needs to be on the hook.
One of the arguments that is made against loser pays is if you have a destitute client there is no downside to them suing, they don't have any money to pay.
Similarly, when the ACLU sues a School Board over Christmas the lawyers are never on the hook so there is no downside for lawyers for frivolous lawsuits.
Make the lawyers have real skin in the game so that they make better decisions on what cases to take.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis woman is the poster-child for the Obama era.
If my kids demanded that I take them to McD's because they want a toy -- and they have done this -- my answer is simple: "No." If they persist, they get a warning. If they still persist, they get sent to their room. If they keep whining, they lose certain privileges (like TV, video games). And if they get out of control with their whining for McD's, they get a hard smack on the thrusters.
Ten bucks and a cup of coffee says that this woman doesn't use even a smidgen of discipline on her children.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You'll shoot your eye out, gullyborg."
Maybe. And think of the potential additional lawsuits should I succeed!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause the obscenity of the lawsuit is self-evident, I instead just want to say that I love McDonald's.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Center for Science in the Public Interest exists to take away our freedoms. McDonald's, and anyone who wants to keep the ability to buy their children happy meals, should sue them for attempting to undermine our constitutional rights. I don't mean a constitutional right to buy or sell happy meals, I mean our constitutional right to make our own choices. CSPI needs to be driven out of existence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse