6th April 2012
Really, California is the Land of Fruits and Nuts.
Parham’s suit had claimed that McDonald’s overt practice of catering to children was “inherently deceptive and unfair” as “children eight years old and younger do not have the cognitive skills and the developmental maturity to understand the persuasive intent of marketing and advertising.”
Well, since they aren’t the ones buying the product, what they believe or don’t believe doesn’t really matter.
arham claimed her daughter, Maya, successfully wheedled the her into buying her Happy Meals to obtain the following toys: I-Carly lip gloss and note pad; Barbie lip gloss and small comb; Shrek movie character figures; Strawberry Shortcake mini-dolls with paper and mini-stamps; and an American Idol toy. As a result, Maya’s health has been harmed “without her knowledge or comprehension…. Given the choice, Maya wants to eat Happy Meals instead of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains because McDonald’s has convinced her that she needs to get the toy…. McDonald’s has unfairly interfered with Parham’s relationship with Maya.”
Damn you, McDonald’s! You know I can’t resist my child’s whining! You must pay!
In December of last year, a city ordinance forbidding fast food restaurants from giving away a toy with a meal unless that meal met agreed-upon health standards. McDonald’s and other fast food outlets emasculated that law, however, by simply charging 10 cents for the toy in a separate transaction. Not only has San Francisco’s heavy-handed effort not made local children healthier or spared parents the hell of whiny kids demanding a Happy Meal — it has, arguably, worsened the problem. Before the “Healthy Meal Incentive Ordinance,” parents could simply buy the toys for a low price and forgo the fast food. Now that is no longer an option — in order to obtain the toy, one must buy the Happy Meal and then make a 10-cent charitable donation.
Be careful what you wish for….