BulletProofBlog the blog on crisis communications

In this regular feature, Bulletproof interviews top plaintiffs’ counsel for their perspective on the crises likely to affect businesses in the near future. Today, we speak to Stephen Gardner, litigation director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which has advised McDonald’s restaurants of its intent to file suit against the fast food giant unless it removes promotional toys from its meal packages. An advisory letter is legally required in several states before suits can be brought under consumer protection statutes.

CSPI accuses McDonald’s of “undermining parental authority” by manipulating children with, among other similar lures, promotional merchandise for the new Shrek movie – and, as a result, exacerbating the national obesity epidemic by irresponsibly marketing unhealthy food.

In April, supervisors of Santa Clara County in California voted to ban toy promotions from fast food meals sold in unincorporated parts of the county.

If this matter does go on to a lawsuit, do you feel you have a strong case? Why?

Stephen Gardner: Legally, the deception claim is very strong. Kids are per se deceived by any marketing aimed at them. No one disagrees with that developmental fact.

On unfairness, it's quite strong as well, but requires a little fact-finding to determine the substance of the unfairness. We allege that it's unfair to the kids, above and beyond tricking them into wanting McDonald’s food now, because it inculcates a life-long fast food habit, with McDonald’s the chief supplier.

And it's unfair to parents, simply because McDonald’s is intentionally trying to bypass their authority by going direct to the kids, and thus making their jobs as parents needlessly harder.

How important is the Santa Clara ban in supporting your efforts?

Stephen Gardner: Not at all important, although we certainly support it. We were developing our case around a year before we learned of the Santa Clara action.

Doesn’t all direct marketing to children undermine parental authority?

Stephen Gardner: Yes. But not all of it to this extent, or with these results.

What do you expect on this issue from the FTC later this year? How meaningful would voluntary guidelines be in this matter?

Stephen Gardner: Other folks at CSPI work more directly with the FTC on these issues than I do, so I can't speak to the question of what we can expect from the FTC on this. But voluntary guidelines are likely to be meaningless. McDonald’s is already under voluntary guidelines with the Better Business Bureau, and those guidelines permit this behavior.

Should you prevail in your effort, either in court or by influencing MacDonald’s out of court, what larger impact would it have – both on the fast food industry and other industries?

Stephen Gardner: With luck, it would send a signal to other, smaller companies, to do the same thing. Worst case, companies will [at least] know that predatory food advertising is not something that has no consequences.