December, 15 2010, 11:16am EDT
Class Action Lawsuit Targets McDonald's Use of Toys to Market to Children
Practice Illegally Exploits Children, Says CSPI
WASHINGTON
A
mother of two from Sacramento, Calif., says that McDonald's uses toys as
bait to induce her kids to clamor to go to McDonald's and to develop a
preference for nutritionally poor Happy Meals. With the help of the
Center for Science in the Public Interest, today the mom, Monet Parham,
is filing a class action lawsuit
aimed at stopping McDonald's use of toys to market directly to young
children. The suit will be filed in California Superior Court in San
Francisco shortly after the court opens for business Wednesday morning.
According to Parham, the main reason her six-year-old
daughter, Maya, asks to go to McDonald's is to get toys based on
Barbie, i-Carly, Shrek, or Strawberry Shortcake. The food seems almost
beside the point to the kids, says Parham, because the toy monopolizes
the attention of Maya and her two-year-old sister Lauryn.
&
"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."
Documents cited by CSPI in the lawsuit show that the Parham family's experience isn't accidental. It is entirely by design.
"Go after kids," is how Roy Bergold, who headed
McDonald's advertising for 29 years as chief creative officer, described
the company's strategy in an article in QSR magazine. "Ray Kroc said
that if you had $1 to spend on marketing, spend it on kids. Why? Because
they can't get to your restaurant by themselves and they eat a lot."
Bergold also acknowledged in a separate QSR column that "companies have
found that kids are a lot more tempted by the toys than the food."
McDonald's "gets into the parents' wallets via the kids'
minds," according to an online presentation by Martin Lindstrom, who
advises McDonald's on branding and "neuromarketing."
And Joe Johnston, who was on the advertising-agency
team that developed the McDonald's Fun Meal, which pre-dated the Happy
Meal, bluntly explained the centrality of the toy to the meal's
marketing: "Yes, even then, we knew that we needed the toy to make it
work."
Fast-food companies-with McDonald's by far in the
lead-spent over $520 million in 2006 on advertising and toys to market
children's meals. Toy premiums made up almost three-quarters of those
expenses, totaling over $350 million.
According to the Institute of Medicine and the
American Psychological Association, kids as young as Maya do not have
the cognitive maturity to understand the persuasive intent of
advertising. Advertising that is not understood to be advertising is
inherently deceptive-an idea that CSPI's lawsuit points out is well
established in law.
"Every time McDonald's markets a Happy Meal directly to a
young child, it exploits a child's developmental vulnerability and
violates several states' consumer protection laws, including the
California Unfair Competition Law," said CSPI litigation director Steve
Gardner.
Even though Happy Meals television advertising
shows brief glimpses of healthier products, such as Apple Dippers and
low-fat milk, the default options put into Happy Meal by McDonald's
employees are usually French fries and sugary sodas. In a CSPI study of
44 McDonald's outlets, French fries were automatically included in
Happy Meals 93 percent of the time. Soft drinks were the first choice
offered to customers 78 percent of the time.
According to CSPI, a reasonable lunch for a typical
sedentary four- to eight-year-old should not exceed a third of a day's
worth, or about 430 calories. Of the Happy Meal combinations that are
possible, only a handful fall under that threshold-and even those have
more than one-third of day's worth of sodium. But none of the Happy
Meals that are served with fries or a soda are healthy for children aged
four to eight, according to CSPI. A meal of a cheeseburger, fries, and
a Sprite has 640 calories, 7 grams of artery-clogging saturated fat,
and 35 grams-or 9 teaspoons-of sugar.
"McDonald's congratulates itself for meals that are
hypothetically possible, though it knows very well that it's mostly
selling burgers or chicken nuggets, fries, and sodas to very young
children," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "In other
words, McDonald's offerings consist mostly of fatty meat, fatty cheese,
French fries, white flour, and sugar-a narrow combination of foods that
promotes weight gain, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease-and may lead
to a lifetime of poor diets."
"What kids see as a fun toy, I now realize is a
sophisticated, high-tech marketing scheme that's designed to put
McDonald's between me and my daughters," Parham said. "For the sake of
other parents and their children, I want McDonald's to stop interfering
with my family."
In June, CSPI first notified
McDonald's it might be the target of a lawsuit. Repeatedly, CSPI
offered to meet with McDonald's to try to reach an agreement that would
avoid litigation, but McDonald's refused.
In anticipation of filing its suit, CSPI served McDonald's with a letter
on Tuesday instructing the company to preserve any documents in its
possession related to the use of toys to market Happy Meals to children.
Lawyers for Parham will seek to examine those documents in discovery
as the case proceeds. In addition to CSPI's Litigation Unit, Parham is
also represented by private attorney Richard Baker of Baker Law, P.C. in
Birmingham, Alabama.
CSPI's litigation unit
has taken on food marketing to children before. In 2006, CSPI notified
Kellogg that it would be sued for marketing sugary cereals and other
junk food directly to children. After negotiating for more than a year,
CSPI and Kellogg reached a historic settlement agreement
that set nutrition standards for the foods the company may advertise on
media with young audiences. Since then, Kellogg only advertises to
young audiences if a serving of the food meets certain nutrition
criteria. Subsequently, numerous other companies announced voluntary
nutrition standards for their advertising.
In previous fast-food litigation, CSPI sued KFC
for using partially hydrogenated oil, which made KFC's chicken high in
trans fat. CSPI dropped that lawsuit when the company agreed to phase out partially hydrogenated oils. KFC chicken is now trans-fat free.
McDonald's use of toys to market to children is also
beginning to come under scrutiny by local officials. The San Francisco
Board of Supervisors recently passed an ordinance
setting nutrition standards for children's meals sold with toys, and
CSPI is urging other jurisdictions to consider similar legislation.
See what experts are saying about Parham v. McDonald's here.
Since 1971, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been a strong advocate for nutrition and health, food safety, alcohol policy, and sound science.
LATEST NEWS
'Tragic Outcome' for Gig Workers as California Supreme Court Hands Win to Uber, DoorDash
"Today's ruling only strengthens our demand for the right to join together in a union so that we can begin improving the gig economy for workers and our customers," the case plaintiff said.
Jul 25, 2024
Labor advocates on Thursday decried a ruling by the California Supreme Court upholding a lower court's affirmation of a state ballot measure allowing app-based ride and delivery companies to classify their drivers as independent contractors, limiting their worker rights.
The court's seven justices ruled unanimously in Castellanos v. State of California that Proposition 22, which was approved by 58% of California voters in 2020, complies with the state constitution. Prop 22—which was overturned in 2021 by an Alameda County Superior Court judge in 2021—was upheld in March 2023 by the state's 1st District Court of Appeals.
The business models of app-based companies including DoorDash, Instacart, Lyft, and Uber rely upon minimizing frontline worker compensation by categorizing drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. Independent contractors are not entitled to unemployment insurance, health insurance, or compensation for business expenses.
There are approximately 1.4 million app-based gig workers in California, according to industry estimates.
While DoorDash hailed Thursday's ruling as "not only a victory for Dashers, but also for democracy itself," gig worker advocates condemned the decision.
"Over the last three years, gig workers across California have experienced firsthand that Prop 22 is nothing more than a bait-and-switch meant to enrich global corporations at the expense of the Black, brown, and immigrant workers who power their earnings," plaintiff Hector Castellanos, who drives for Uber and Lyft, said in a statement.
"Prop 22 has allowed gig companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash to deprive us of a living wage, access to workers compensation, paid sick leave, and meaningful healthcare coverage," Castellanos added. "Today's ruling only strengthens our demand for the right to join together in a union so that we can begin improving the gig economy for workers and our customers."
Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO, said that "we are deeply disappointed that the state Supreme Court has allowed tech corporations to buy their way out of basic labor laws despite Proposition 22's inconsistencies with our state constitution."
"These companies have upended our social contract, forcing workers and the public to take on the inherent risk created by this work, while they profit," she continued. "A.B. 5 granted virtually all California workers the right to be paid for all hours worked, health and safety standards, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and the right to organize."
"Rideshare and delivery drivers deserve those rights as well," Gonzalez stressed.
The Gig Workers Rising campaign said on social media that "Uber and other app corporations spent $220 million to buy this law, and they did it by tricking Californians."
Prop 22's passage in November 2020 with nearly 59% of the vote was the culmination of what was by far the most expensive ballot measure in California history. App-based companies and their backers outspent labor and progressive groups by more than 10 to 1, with proponents pouring a staggering $204.5 million into the "yes" campaign's coffers against just $19 million for the "no" side.
"Voters were told the initiative would provide us with 'historic new benefits' and guaranteed earnings," said Gig Workers Rising. "But since it went into effect, drivers have seen our pay go down, learned the benefits are a sham, and have to accept unsafe rides because of the constant threat of being 'deactivated,' kicked off the app with little explanation or warning."
"If Uber really cared about good benefits and fair wages, it could make that happen tomorrow," the campaign added. "Instead, it has shown it would rather slash pay, bamboozle voters, and put drivers' lives and livelihoods in danger—all while promising $7 billion in stock buybacks to banks and billionaires."
Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine who focuses on labor and inequality, toldCalMatters that Thursday's ruling was "a really tragic outcome," but "it's not the end of the road."
Dubal's sentiment was echoed by some California state legislators, who said the ruling presents an opportunity to act.
"While this decision is frustrating, it must also be motivating," said state Senate Labor Committee Chair Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-28). "I'm more determined than ever to ensure that all workers—including our diverse and Black, Indigenous, and people of color-led gig workforce—have the basic protections of workers compensation, paid sick leave, family leave, disability insurance, and the right to form a union."
Prop 22 has served as a template for lawmakers in other states seeking to deny or limit basic worker rights, benefits, and protections.
In Massachusetts, app-based companies have been fighting for years to get a measure to classify drivers as contractors on the state ballot. In 2022, Lyft made the largest political donation in state history—$14.4 million—to a coalition funding one such proposal.
Last month, Uber and Lyft reached an agreement with the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, a Democrat, to pay $175 million to settle a lawsuit filed in 2020. As part of the deal, the companies also agreed to increase driver pay and provide paid sick leave, accident insurance, and some health benefits. The agreement does not address how app-based gig workers should be classified.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Young Voters Tell Kamala Harris to 'Fight for Our Future'
"This is your chance to energize young people and our communities to vote, mount one of the greatest political comebacks in decades, and deliver a resounding defeat to the far-right agenda of Trump and Vance."
Jul 25, 2024
Four youth-led groups on Thursday urged Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to "fight for our future" by pursuing a policy agenda the coalition unveiled in a March letter to U.S. President Joe Biden.
It's been less than a week since Biden left the race and endorsed Harris, who is expected to face former Republican Donald Trump and his running mate, U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), in the November election. Since then, she's racked up endorsements from Democratic members of Congress and progressive groups focused on issues including climate, labor, and reproductive rights.
March for Our Lives, which was launched after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, honored Harris with the group's first-ever endorsement on Wednesday, calling her "the right person to stand up for us and fight for the country we deserve."
"To defeat Trump, you must rebuild support and enthusiasm among young voters."
The gun violence prevention organization is part of the youth-led coalition behind the new letter, which also includes the climate-focused Sunrise Movement; Gen-Z for Change, which advocates on a range of issues; and the national immigrant network United We Dream Action.
"You have an urgent and important task. To defeat Trump, you must rebuild support and enthusiasm among young voters," the coalition told Harris on Thursday, noting that she sought the Democratic nomination during the last cycle. "You should build on your 2020 campaign platform where you put forward a strong vision to make the economy work for everyday people and ensure a livable future for us all."
The groups urged Harris to support the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act. They pushed her to expand pathways to citizenship, keep families together, end fossil fuel subsidies, and create good, union jobs. They also called on her to prioritize gun violence prevention and investments in public health solutions and green, affordable housing.
"Democrats are at a critical crossroads with young people," the coalition wrote to Harris on Thursday. "Polls showed Biden and Trump neck-and-neck among young voters."
ANew York Times/Siena College poll conducted July 22-24 shows Trump leading Harris 48% to 47% among likely voters and 48% to 46% among registered voters—differences that fall within the margin of error.
Forbesnoted Thursday that "Democrats are far more enthusiastic about Harris than they were Biden, the Times/Siena survey found, with nearly 80% of voters who lean Democrat saying they would like Harris to be the nominee, compared to 48% of Democrats who said the same about Biden three weeks ago."
The outlet also pointed to two other polls conducted by Morning Consult and Reuters/Ipsos since Biden dropped out, which both show Harris with a narrow lead over Trump.
"You have an opportunity to win the youth vote by turning the page and differentiating yourself from Biden policies that are deeply unpopular with us, such as approving new oil and gas projects, denying people their right to seek refuge and asylum, and funding the Israeli government's killing of civilians in Gaza," the youth coalition highlighted Thursday. "You must speak to the economic pain young people are facing from crushing student debt and skyrocketing housing and food prices."
Looking beyond November, the groups told Harris—who could be the first Black woman and person of Asian descent elected to the country's highest office—that "you could be a historic president. Not just because of who you are, but what you can accomplish."
"Young people are energized and ready to organize against fascism and for the future we deserve," they concluded. "This is your chance to energize young people and our communities to vote, mount one of the greatest political comebacks in decades, and deliver a resounding defeat to the far-right agenda of Trump and Vance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Video Game Actors Strike for AI Protections
"The video game industry generates billions of dollars in profit annually," said one union leader. "The driving force behind that success is the creative people who design and create those games."
Jul 25, 2024
After nearly two years of negotiations with video game giants and no deal that would protect performers from artificial intelligence, unionized voice and motion capture actors who work in video game development announced Thursday that they will go on strike starting at 12:01 am on Friday, July 26.
The performers are represented by Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), which last year won a contract for TV and film actors that included "unprecedented provisions for consent and compensation that will protect members from the threat of AI," after the union went on strike for four months.
The union has been negotiating on behalf of video game actors with major production companies including Disney Character Voices Inc., Activision Productions Inc., and WB Games Inc., and has won concessions over wages and job safety—but "AI protections remain the sticking point," said SAG-AFTRA on Thursday as the impending strike was announced.
Unionized actors want protections that would stop video game companies from training AI to replicate actors' voices or likeness without their consent and without compensating them.
"The video game industry generates billions of dollars in profit annually," said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, national executive director and chief negotiator for SAG-AFTRA. "The driving force behind that success is the creative people who design and create those games. That includes the SAG-AFTRA members who bring memorable and beloved game characters to life, and they deserve and demand the same fundamental protections as performers in film, television, streaming, and music: fair compensation and the right of informed consent for the AI use of their faces, voices, and bodies."
"Frankly, it's stunning that these video game studios haven't learned anything from the lessons of last year—that our members can and will stand up and demand fair and equitable treatment with respect to AI, and the public supports us in that," he added.
Sarah Elmaleh, negotiating committee chair for the union's interactive media agreement, said the negotiations have shown the companies "are not interested in fair, reasonable AI protections, but rather flagrant exploitation."
"We look forward to collaborating with teams on our interim and independent contracts, which provide AI transparency, consent, and compensation to all performers, and to continuing to negotiate in good faith with this bargaining group when they are ready to join us in the world we all deserve," said Elmaleh.
The unionized actors voted in favor of the strike authorization with a 98.32% yes vote, said SAG-AFTRA.
The strike was announced as more than 500 workers who help develop the popular World of Warcraft video game franchise voted to join the Communications Workers of America (CWA), with the games publisher, Blizzard Entertainment, recognizing the bargaining unit.
CWA noted that the workers' journey to union representation began with a walkout in 2021 at Activision Blizzard, which was later bought by Microsoft, over sexual harassment and discrimination.
"What we've accomplished at World of Warcraft is just the beginning," Eric Lanham, a World of Warcraft test analyst, said in a statement. "We know that when workers have a protected voice, it's a win-win for employee standards, the studio, and World of Warcraft fans looking for the best gaming experience."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular