I am not going to be your usual go-to guy for praise of courts that toss tort cases but even I've got my limits. So kudos to the Eastern District of California for tossing a suit against the makers of Cap'n Crunch for the harm inflicted on the plaintiff when, after four years of consumption, she was shocked! shocked! to discover that Crunch Berries aren't actually fruit. This will go into the annals of dumb advertising-related cases with the guy who tried to get Pepsi to buy him a Harrier jet.
An extra kick-in-the-nuts go to plaintiff's counsel because this isn't even their first attempted bite at the fake apple. According to the decision (pdf), a court in the Central District of California "previously rejected substantially similar claims directed against the packaging of Fruit Loops [sic] cereal, and brought by these same Plaintiff attorneys."
I'm not sure on what grounds the plaintiff could possibly have sought relief, as I assure you Froot Loops are positively teeming with froot.
Hat-tip: The Awl
Last 5 posts by Charles
- If You Watch the Tape, You'll Still See What You Want To - September 29th, 2015
- On Dying - April 6th, 2014
- Not All Layers of An Onion Are Equally Worth Peeling Back - February 26th, 2013
- Did someone mention consistency? - February 5th, 2013
- Is That A Mote In Your Dog's Eye? - April 17th, 2012