Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Walmart wins lawsuit claiming its Great Value Fudge Mint cookies lack fudge and mint. Knowledgeable consumers don't expect generic Walmart snacks to contain actual food   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line
39
    More: Obvious, Lawsuit, Class action, Drink, Law, Butterfat, New York, Lawyer, Court  
•       •       •

551 clicks; posted to Business » and Food » on 09 Feb 2023 at 6:55 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



39 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
clkeagle [BareFark]
2023-02-09 7:21:33 AM  
frinkiac.comView Full Size
 
ColleenSezWhuut
2023-02-09 7:42:36 AM  
On one hand, walmart won.

But on the other hand, a scummy class action suit lawyer got told to take his stupid case and shove it.  So I've got that going for me.
 
zeroflight222
2023-02-09 7:48:50 AM  
Next they'll tell me it's not a crunchy, raw, unboned, real, dead frog but instead a mock frog.
 
brainlordmesomorph
2023-02-09 7:52:57 AM  
I just looked a Walmart.com

The cookies don't say "Mint flavored" (like most artificially flavored crap) they say Mint, with a picture of mint leaves. That crosses the line, the judge is wrong.

And yes we need lawyers ("scummy" or otherwise) yanking guys into court over this kind of thing or we'll just have major corporations lying to us 100% of the time.
 
zeroflight222
2023-02-09 7:59:19 AM  

brainlordmesomorph: I just looked a Walmart.com

The cookies don't say "Mint flavored" (like most artificially flavored crap) they say Mint, with a picture of mint leaves. That crosses the line, the judge is wrong.

And yes we need lawyers ("scummy" or otherwise) yanking guys into court over this kind of thing or we'll just have major corporations lying to us 100% of the time.


"Flavored with peppermint" is on the package.  Ditto "real cocoa".
 
ColleenSezWhuut
2023-02-09 8:00:13 AM  

brainlordmesomorph: And yes we need lawyers ("scummy" or otherwise) yanking guys into court over this kind of thing or we'll just have major corporations lying to us 100% of the time.


The problem is that the lawyers ensure that the suit is set to be the cost of doing business.  They don't want to actually stop these companies from lying, they just want to take home millions of bucks repeatedly by pretending to pull some sort of Robin Hood maneuver.

Source: I've generated the scientific evidence that was supposed to be used for several lawsuits regarding food fraud.  Not simply mislabeling "flavors" but actual adulteration with fillers that weren't listed on the ingredients.  That was an eye opening experience in to how scummy these sorts of lawyers really are.
 
brainlordmesomorph
2023-02-09 8:04:03 AM  

ColleenSezWhuut: brainlordmesomorph: And yes we need lawyers ("scummy" or otherwise) yanking guys into court over this kind of thing or we'll just have major corporations lying to us 100% of the time.

The problem is that the lawyers ensure that the suit is set to be the cost of doing business.  They don't want to actually stop these companies from lying, they just want to take home millions of bucks repeatedly by pretending to pull some sort of Robin Hood maneuver.

Source: I've generated the scientific evidence that was supposed to be used for several lawsuits regarding food fraud.  Not simply mislabeling "flavors" but actual adulteration with fillers that weren't listed on the ingredients.  That was an eye opening experience in to how scummy these sorts of lawyers really are.


I never said the system was perfect, and if what you're saying is true (and I believe you), then that sounds like we need more lawsuits over food ingredients, not less.
 
ColleenSezWhuut
2023-02-09 8:08:19 AM  

brainlordmesomorph: ColleenSezWhuut: brainlordmesomorph: And yes we need lawyers ("scummy" or otherwise) yanking guys into court over this kind of thing or we'll just have major corporations lying to us 100% of the time.

The problem is that the lawyers ensure that the suit is set to be the cost of doing business.  They don't want to actually stop these companies from lying, they just want to take home millions of bucks repeatedly by pretending to pull some sort of Robin Hood maneuver.

Source: I've generated the scientific evidence that was supposed to be used for several lawsuits regarding food fraud.  Not simply mislabeling "flavors" but actual adulteration with fillers that weren't listed on the ingredients.  That was an eye opening experience in to how scummy these sorts of lawyers really are.

I never said the system was perfect, and if what you're saying is true (and I believe you), then that sounds like we need more lawsuits over food ingredients, not less.


Lawsuits don't put people in jail and rarely pierce the corporate veil due to the desire for repeat business.

Law enforcement needs to do their damn job and actually punish people for their misdeeds.  Individual punishment, not tax writeoffs.
 
brainlordmesomorph
2023-02-09 8:13:11 AM  

ColleenSezWhuut: Lawsuits don't put people in jail and rarely pierce the corporate veil due to the desire for repeat business.

Law enforcement needs to do their damn job and actually punish people for their misdeeds. Individual punishment, not tax writeoffs.


I don't know who you put in jail for not putting the word "flavored" on a package.  The graphic artist or the CEO? Neither of them are actually responsible.

But enough lawsuits (and fines) is why we have the word  "flavored" on at least some of our packages.
 
Chief Superintendent Lookout
2023-02-09 8:14:45 AM  
You're eating Great Value brand "food".  Don't expect quality ingredients.
 
ColleenSezWhuut
2023-02-09 8:21:37 AM  

brainlordmesomorph: ColleenSezWhuut: Lawsuits don't put people in jail and rarely pierce the corporate veil due to the desire for repeat business.

Law enforcement needs to do their damn job and actually punish people for their misdeeds. Individual punishment, not tax writeoffs.

I don't know who you put in jail for not putting the word "flavored" on a package.  The graphic artist or the CEO? Neither of them are actually responsible.

But enough lawsuits (and fines) is why we have the word  "flavored" on at least some of our packages.


Who approved the packaging without ensuring that it aligned with the ingredients list?  That's a good start.  Put a bit of personal risk back in to this and people might actually start thinking.

Now for jail time I'm talking more about instances of outright undeclared dilution or substitution sorts of things, not some really thin "Jethro here can't read good and thought these here cookies should have actual mint leaves in them" label nitpick like the cookie suit.
 
Marcos P
2023-02-09 8:21:54 AM  
"Rowland also agreed with Walmart that "mint" promised a flavor, not actual mint"


Hogwash!
 
brainlordmesomorph
2023-02-09 8:27:15 AM  

Chief Superintendent Lookout: You're eating Great Value brand "food".  Don't expect quality ingredients.


ColleenSezWhuut:

Now for jail time I'm talking more about instances of outright undeclared dilution or substitution sorts of things, not some really thin "Jethro here can't read good and thought these here cookies should have actual mint leaves in them" label nitpick like the cookie suit.

I'm noticing a bit of socioeconomic prejudice here.

Lower income people who are forced to buy these products deserve the protection under the law as the rest of us.
 
Chief Superintendent Lookout
2023-02-09 8:42:42 AM  

brainlordmesomorph: Chief Superintendent Lookout: You're eating Great Value brand "food".  Don't expect quality ingredients.

ColleenSezWhuut:

Now for jail time I'm talking more about instances of outright undeclared dilution or substitution sorts of things, not some really thin "Jethro here can't read good and thought these here cookies should have actual mint leaves in them" label nitpick like the cookie suit.

I'm noticing a bit of socioeconomic prejudice here.

Lower income people who are forced to buy these products deserve the protection under the law as the rest of us.


No one is forcing anyone to buy that stuff.
 
Jumpthruhoops
2023-02-09 8:44:24 AM  
I just realized that I have absolutely no faith in the system. I never had a ton, but my first thought after reading the article is "how much Walmart stock does the judge have?" You would think that having stock would be cause for recusal, but we have no checks in place to enforce that.
 
ColleenSezWhuut
2023-02-09 8:49:37 AM  

brainlordmesomorph: Chief Superintendent Lookout: You're eating Great Value brand "food".  Don't expect quality ingredients.

ColleenSezWhuut:

Now for jail time I'm talking more about instances of outright undeclared dilution or substitution sorts of things, not some really thin "Jethro here can't read good and thought these here cookies should have actual mint leaves in them" label nitpick like the cookie suit.

I'm noticing a bit of socioeconomic prejudice here.

Lower income people who are forced to buy these products deserve the protection under the law as the rest of us.


<sigh>
The plaintiffs that lawyers effectively hire for these sorts of cases often come from those groups.  That is why many of the arguments seem to be lack of common sense side of the spectrum.

These people absolutely deserve protection but these cases aren't really "under the law."  Many of these cases are settled via legal extortion letters from the lawyers and never reach the public eye.

Class action lawyers exploit poor people for their own benefit (Jethro and the other class members might get $5 from the suit while the lawyers get millions if it goes to court).

What makes it even worse is often times evidence of major misconduct (read: felonies) by producers is kept from law enforcement simply so lawyers can extort these companies for money instead of fixing the issue.
 
Chief Superintendent Lookout
2023-02-09 9:01:50 AM  

Chief Superintendent Lookout: brainlordmesomorph: Chief Superintendent Lookout: You're eating Great Value brand "food".  Don't expect quality ingredients.

ColleenSezWhuut:

Now for jail time I'm talking more about instances of outright undeclared dilution or substitution sorts of things, not some really thin "Jethro here can't read good and thought these here cookies should have actual mint leaves in them" label nitpick like the cookie suit.

I'm noticing a bit of socioeconomic prejudice here.

Lower income people who are forced to buy these products deserve the protection under the law as the rest of us.

No one is forcing anyone to buy that stuff.


Let me clarify my comment.  I am all for the Pure Food and Drug Act and what it entails.  I am well aware of the kinds of crap food producers would put in food back in the late-19th Century/early-20th.

That being said, claiming poor people are being forced to purchase Wal Mart's Great Value brand food is ridiculous.  People of all income levels purchase generic or store brand items.
 
Benevolent Misanthrope [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-09 9:14:59 AM  

brainlordmesomorph: I just looked a Walmart.com

The cookies don't say "Mint flavored" (like most artificially flavored crap) they say Mint, with a picture of mint leaves. That crosses the line, the judge is wrong.

And yes we need lawyers ("scummy" or otherwise) yanking guys into court over this kind of thing or we'll just have major corporations lying to us 100% of the time.


As opposed to now, when they only lie to is 90% of the time?

If you are relying on the pictures on the packaging to inform your nutritional decisions, that tells me you don't genuinely give a shiat about the nutritional content if your cheap store-brand junk food.
 
phedex
2023-02-09 9:25:26 AM  
Food labeling needs to be consistent.  if something is strawberry flavored, but doesnt call out that it's artificial, that's a problem.

I know goofy shiat like cookies that aren't made with the federal definition of chocolate sounds petty, but it's really important.  Because before you know it you would be buying 3lbs of tyson chicken that is actually horse meat with chicken flavoring.
 
brainlordmesomorph
2023-02-09 9:32:36 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: brainlordmesomorph: I just looked a Walmart.com

The cookies don't say "Mint flavored" (like most artificially flavored crap) they say Mint, with a picture of mint leaves. That crosses the line, the judge is wrong.

And yes we need lawyers ("scummy" or otherwise) yanking guys into court over this kind of thing or we'll just have major corporations lying to us 100% of the time.

As opposed to now, when they only lie to is 90% of the time?

If you are relying on the pictures on the packaging to inform your nutritional decisions, that tells me you don't genuinely give a shiat about the nutritional content if your cheap store-brand junk food.


What I buy is very separate issue. (I buy all organic high quality expensive food for myself. I read ingredients, I can pronounce all the chemical names and I know what they are. )

But labeling something "mint" when it is mint flavored is wrong.

As for you 90% figure; [citation needed]
 
brainlordmesomorph
2023-02-09 9:36:37 AM  

Chief Superintendent Lookout: That being said, claiming poor people are being forced to purchase Wal Mart's Great Value brand food is ridiculous. People of all income levels purchase generic or store brand items.


They can and some do.

But the poors (as fark likes to call them) do not have a choice. They must buy the cheapest thing they can.
 
brainlordmesomorph
2023-02-09 9:55:48 AM  

brainlordmesomorph: Chief Superintendent Lookout: That being said, claiming poor people are being forced to purchase Wal Mart's Great Value brand food is ridiculous. People of all income levels purchase generic or store brand items.

They can and some do.

But the poors (as fark likes to call them) do not have a choice. They must buy the cheapest thing they can.


Let me clarify my comment;

In the "food desert" problem that we're having in lots of poor places in America, often a WalMart is the only store they can get to. And at a WalMart the cheapest product is always the Great Value brand.

They are indeed forced to buy it.
 
Rene ala Carte [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-09 10:11:16 AM  
media.tenor.comView Full Size
 
Benevolent Misanthrope [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-09 10:22:42 AM  

brainlordmesomorph: Benevolent Misanthrope: brainlordmesomorph: I just looked a Walmart.com

The cookies don't say "Mint flavored" (like most artificially flavored crap) they say Mint, with a picture of mint leaves. That crosses the line, the judge is wrong.

And yes we need lawyers ("scummy" or otherwise) yanking guys into court over this kind of thing or we'll just have major corporations lying to us 100% of the time.

As opposed to now, when they only lie to is 90% of the time?

If you are relying on the pictures on the packaging to inform your nutritional decisions, that tells me you don't genuinely give a shiat about the nutritional content if your cheap store-brand junk food.

What I buy is very separate issue. (I buy all organic high quality expensive food for myself. I read ingredients, I can pronounce all the chemical names and I know what they are. )

But labeling something "mint" when it is mint flavored is wrong.

As for you 90% figure; [citation needed]


Next thing, you'll be telling me Girl Scott cookies don't actually contain actual Girl Scout.
 
mrmopar5287 [TotalFark]
2023-02-09 10:44:50 AM  

zeroflight222: "real cocoa"


Using the word "chocolate" has strict definitions - made with cocoa butter. If vegetable oil is substituted, you'll often find "chocolaty" or "chocolate flavored" as the weasel words on the package.

The description of "fudge" is in that grey area because that can be a lot of things and doesn't have to be chocolate, but lots of Americans conflate "fudge" with "chocolate" because I guess that's the widest observed and consumed flavor of fudge.
 
mrmopar5287 [TotalFark]
2023-02-09 10:46:03 AM  

ColleenSezWhuut: Source: I've generated the scientific evidence that was supposed to be used for several lawsuits regarding food fraud.  Not simply mislabeling "flavors" but actual adulteration with fillers that weren't listed on the ingredients.  That was an eye opening experience in to how scummy these sorts of lawyers really are.


You found food products with unlabeled ingredients and you consider the lawyers to be the scum in these cases? That's an interesting take.
 
Carter Pewterschmidt [TotalFark]
2023-02-09 10:49:52 AM  

brainlordmesomorph: The cookies don't say "Mint flavored" (like most artificially flavored crap) they say Mint, with a picture of mint leaves. That crosses the line, the judge is wrong.


In the UK if a package has a picture of something on it, like a strawberry, then it legally must contain real strawberries. If it is only strawberry flavoured then they're not allowed to pit a picture of a strawberry on the package.

/Baby oil still has a picture of a baby on it, lying bastards.
 
Fano
2023-02-09 11:38:56 AM  

Chief Superintendent Lookout: Chief Superintendent Lookout: brainlordmesomorph: Chief Superintendent Lookout: You're eating Great Value brand "food".  Don't expect quality ingredients.

ColleenSezWhuut:

Now for jail time I'm talking more about instances of outright undeclared dilution or substitution sorts of things, not some really thin "Jethro here can't read good and thought these here cookies should have actual mint leaves in them" label nitpick like the cookie suit.

I'm noticing a bit of socioeconomic prejudice here.

Lower income people who are forced to buy these products deserve the protection under the law as the rest of us.

No one is forcing anyone to buy that stuff.

Let me clarify my comment.  I am all for the Pure Food and Drug Act and what it entails.  I am well aware of the kinds of crap food producers would put in food back in the late-19th Century/early-20th.

That being said, claiming poor people are being forced to purchase Wal Mart's Great Value brand food is ridiculous.  People of all income levels purchase generic or store brand items.


I think we can agree that the company should be forced to make their product match the description on the label, no matter who the intended buyer may be.
 
mrmopar5287 [TotalFark]
2023-02-09 12:58:39 PM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: In the UK if a package has a picture of something on it, like a strawberry, then it legally must contain real strawberries


How do they handle a thing like mint, where it is widely assumed that oil extractions of mint can be used for flavoring without needing actual mint leaves in a product? That's the case here, where peppermint oil is the mint flavoring. I mean, I occasionally eat peppermint candies (the Brach's lozenges) and I don't expect them to contain peppermint leaves.
 
CCNP
2023-02-09 1:15:14 PM  

brainlordmesomorph: I just looked a Walmart.com

The cookies don't say "Mint flavored" (like most artificially flavored crap) they say Mint, with a picture of mint leaves. That crosses the line, the judge is wrong.

And yes we need lawyers ("scummy" or otherwise) yanking guys into court over this kind of thing or we'll just have major corporations lying to us 100% of the time.


Yep, I expect my mint gum to have actual mint in the gum. They can't expect us to read the ingredients on the package, only look at the pictures.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Kraftwerk Orange
2023-02-09 1:53:20 PM  

brainlordmesomorph: ColleenSezWhuut: Lawsuits don't put people in jail and rarely pierce the corporate veil due to the desire for repeat business.

Law enforcement needs to do their damn job and actually punish people for their misdeeds. Individual punishment, not tax writeoffs.

I don't know who you put in jail for not putting the word "flavored" on a package.  The graphic artist or the CEO? Neither of them are actually responsible.

But enough lawsuits (and fines) is why we have the word  "flavored" on at least some of our packages.


Mrs. Orange is a very intelligent woman with a Masters degree, but we had to have a conversation about why the cheap "chocolatey" candy she sometimes brought home would no longer be welcome.   Thankfully, she scrutinizes the labels more closely now.
 
BolloxReader [OhFark]
2023-02-09 7:19:37 PM  

brainlordmesomorph: ColleenSezWhuut: Lawsuits don't put people in jail and rarely pierce the corporate veil due to the desire for repeat business.

Law enforcement needs to do their damn job and actually punish people for their misdeeds. Individual punishment, not tax writeoffs.

I don't know who you put in jail for not putting the word "flavored" on a package.  The graphic artist or the CEO? Neither of them are actually responsible.

But enough lawsuits (and fines) is why we have the word  "flavored" on at least some of our packages.


Someone made the decision to represent missing ingredients as actually present. Someone was in charge of approving packaging graphics. You start there. You make it clear that whomever has that  authority has clear legal liability. If a decision is overruled, then that makes it clear that the person doing the overruling has the actual authority and liability.
 
BolloxReader [OhFark]
2023-02-09 7:23:27 PM  

Chief Superintendent Lookout: Chief Superintendent Lookout: brainlordmesomorph: Chief Superintendent Lookout: You're eating Great Value brand "food".  Don't expect quality ingredients.

ColleenSezWhuut:

Now for jail time I'm talking more about instances of outright undeclared dilution or substitution sorts of things, not some really thin "Jethro here can't read good and thought these here cookies should have actual mint leaves in them" label nitpick like the cookie suit.

I'm noticing a bit of socioeconomic prejudice here.

Lower income people who are forced to buy these products deserve the protection under the law as the rest of us.

No one is forcing anyone to buy that stuff.

Let me clarify my comment.  I am all for the Pure Food and Drug Act and what it entails.  I am well aware of the kinds of crap food producers would put in food back in the late-19th Century/early-20th.

That being said, claiming poor people are being forced to purchase Wal Mart's Great Value brand food is ridiculous.  People of all income levels purchase generic or store brand items.


You don't believe that people with less money can't afford to buy higher prices food? What do you think "poor" means?
 
BolloxReader [OhFark]
2023-02-09 7:28:15 PM  

mrmopar5287: ColleenSezWhuut: Source: I've generated the scientific evidence that was supposed to be used for several lawsuits regarding food fraud.  Not simply mislabeling "flavors" but actual adulteration with fillers that weren't listed on the ingredients.  That was an eye opening experience in to how scummy these sorts of lawyers really are.

You found food products with unlabeled ingredients and you consider the lawyers to be the scum in these cases? That's an interesting take.


Are the lawyers going to force the food manufacturers to include what they are representing on the front of the packaging or will they take a settlement that does not force such a change?

If it is the latter, the attorneys are a part of the problem. If their acceptable outcome is the former, then they are actually performing a positive function.
 
BolloxReader [OhFark]
2023-02-09 7:36:30 PM  
I guess my point is, the only acceptable outcome of a class action lawsuit is a judicial ruling to adhere to basic principles that graphic representations on the packaging must reflect the contents of that packaging, and that failure to comply within a specified timeframe (say, 90 days) places them in contempt of court.

Really, there should also be legislation that rescinds business and other licenses and tax permits if a business is found in contempt of court. Perhaps require administrative dissolution within 30 days of such a finding.
 
mrmopar5287 [TotalFark]
2023-02-09 7:36:56 PM  

BolloxReader: Are the lawyers going to force the food manufacturers to include what they are representing on the front of the packaging or will they take a settlement that does not force such a change?


It's usually both. Money is owed to settle the class action suit and the defendant also has to agree to change ingredients, packaging, or whatever is deceptive. I've been through these a few times with some liquor (Templeton whiskey) and beer (some beer from Hawaii that was not brewed in Hawaii).
 
Carter Pewterschmidt [TotalFark]
2023-02-09 8:53:21 PM  

mrmopar5287: Carter Pewterschmidt: In the UK if a package has a picture of something on it, like a strawberry, then it legally must contain real strawberries

How do they handle a thing like mint, where it is widely assumed that oil extractions of mint can be used for flavoring without needing actual mint leaves in a product? That's the case here, where peppermint oil is the mint flavoring. I mean, I occasionally eat peppermint candies (the Brach's lozenges) and I don't expect them to contain peppermint leaves.


There are lots of cases where something is grandfathered in. For example the milk substitutes made from soya, oat etc are legally not allowed to be sold as "milk" and have to be labelled soya "drink". Only actual dairy milk can be sold as milk. But coconut milk and almond milk are allowed, because they have been commonly called such for years.
 
Excelsior
2023-02-10 2:21:21 AM  

Chief Superintendent Lookout: You're eating Great Value brand "food".  Don't expect quality ingredients.


I bought canned artichoke hearts yesterday; it had a a big blurb on the can claiming it would be great as an ingredient.
 
cyberspacedout
2023-02-10 3:36:06 PM  

zeroflight222: Next they'll tell me it's not a crunchy, raw, unboned, real, dead frog but instead a mock frog.


Likewise, their turtles aren't the real thing.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size


The shells would be high in calcium.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

All the submissions, none of the calories.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.