Breaking News: Taco Bell responded to the lawsuit mentioned in this post by running a full-page ad in the New York Times. I’ve included excerpts from the ad in italics below.
I’m not a huge fan of law suits, because I think some people use them for the wrong reasons. But every once in a while, there’s a lawsuit that gets my attention.
That’s what happened this week when a law firm claimed that Taco Bell is using false advertising when it refers to using “seasoned ground beef” or “seasoned beef” in its products.
Do you know your advertising law? Read these case studies to see how savvy you are.
According to the law suit, the meat mixture sold by Taco Bell restaurants contains binders and extenders and allegedly do not meet the minimum requirements set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be labeled as “beef.”
Attorney Dee Miles said they had Taco Bell’s “meat mixture” tested and found it contained less that 35 percent beef. The lawsuit does not seek monetary damages, but asks the court to order Taco Bell to be honest in its advertising.
Irvine, Calif.-based Taco Bell spokesman Rob Poetsch said the company denies that its advertising is misleading. “Taco Bell prides itself on serving high quality Mexican inspired food with great value. We’re happy that the millions of customers we serve every week agree,” Poetsch said. He said the company would “vigorously defend the suit.”
In a full page ad in the New York Times, Taco Bell said, “The claims against Taco Bell and our seasoned beef are absolutely false. Our beef is 100% USDA inspected, just like the quality beef you buy in a supermarket and prepare in your home … In case you’re curious, here’s our not-so-secret recipe. We start with USDA-inspected quality beef (88%). Then add water to keep it juicy and moist (3%). Mix in Mexican spices and flavors … (4%). Combine a little oats, caramelized sugar, yeast … (5%).
Based on Taco Bell’s response, the people filing the law suit have some ‘spaining to do.
More Advertising Law Case Studies
Not long ago, Jon Andersen with the Andersen Law Firm wrote an article for the 60 Second Marketer about advertising law.
Here’s what Jon wrote:
In a recent reported matter before the Nation Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus was an objection to some press releases released by the company, PrintsMadeEasy, Inc. Among other things, the press releases announced that the Business Cards Association of America had given its “annual” award for “Top Business Card Provider” to PrintsMadeEasy.com.
The award was issued by a “blue ribbon panel” that ranks business card providers on their service. The release then went on in some detail about the reasons PrintsMadeEasy.com was selected for the award (as well as a few disparaging remarks about competitor VistaPrint).
As you have probably already guessed, there is no “Business Cards Association of America”! There was absolutely no truth to the claim that any award was issued by such an association, let alone an “annual” award, nor was there a “blue ribbon panel” which ranked business card providers on their service.
Squirming in the face of the enormous falsehoods, PrintsMadeEasy tried to duck by saying that the press releases were really not advertising and furthermore, they (PrintsMadeEasy) did not control the content of the press releases which were prepared and distributed by an outside public relations firm.
Needless to say, NAD wasn’t buying any of that bit of guff and determined that the press release was nothing short of a paid commercial message by the advertiser. No joke! Advertising practices such as this should be hammered, and hammered hard. Here both the company and the PR firm were completely dishonest and deserve any suffering that may have resulted from this activity.
Probably no business is more competitive than food. From white tablecloth restaurants to supermarkets to farmer’s markets, the variety of offerings is mind boggling. So, making a product stand out is no easy task. In the recent past, the move on the part of the large consumer packaged food marketers, the thrust of the pitch seems to have been to involve health benefits.
For a while, the products seemed to focus on their “lack” of bad ingredients, i.e. no fat, low sodium, reduced sugar, etc. If we eat the advertised product, we will reduce our risk of the adverse health effect associated with the product in an unaltered state. And the advertising followed suit, with headline claims on how to lower your cholesterol by simply using the advertised product and, oh by the way, also following a low fat diet. And so it went.
Now, the trend has shifted from what is removed from the product to what has been added for our benefit. It is a world of additives, the “vitamin enriched” products, such as orange juice and even water. And vitamins everyone thought they understood. There is even a chart on most products detailing your daily recommended vitamin level, and the percent of that level a serving of the product delivers.
Then Dannon struck gold with its Activia yogurt. And a new advertising theme was created, “biotics.” Probiotics! Prebiotics! And the theme now is how these ingredients, work with your body’s natural systems (digestive, immune, etc.) to provide health benefits greater than ever.
Of course, advertising, spreading the word on these new ingredients and the health benefits jumps in with both feet, citing clinical studies, test results, statistics and other supportive “scientific” evidence. Many of the claims border on the claims made for products that most reasonable consumers know are not true, the “lose 30 pounds in two weeks with X-Loss” sort of thing. But these are “big-league” companies. So the question is real benefits or just marketing hype? How do we tell?
Ah, a California (where else) law firm is seeking to have a jury tell us. Representing a female named Patricia Wiener (and seeking to have the case expanded to a class action, mostly because there is not much money to be made in one plaintiff), a lawsuit has been filed against Dannon alleging that Ms. Weiner has been damaged because of the deceptive advertising for its DanActive, which duped her into buying the product. The law firm takes great issue with Dannon’s claims of “clinically proven” results.
Lesson: Is your claims substantiation evidence court-worthy?
Posted by Jamie Turner, Chief Content Officer of the 60 Second Marketer, the online magazine of BKV Digital and Direct Response. Jamie is also the co-author of How to Make Money with Social Media.
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Facebook
RSS
GooglePlus