Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Another wacky lawsuit: woman sues Kraft over amount of avocado in guacamole


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#1 of 133 Chris Lockwood

Chris Lockwood

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 3,215 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 21 1999

Posted November 30 2006 - 06:55 AM

These lawsuits just keep getting dumber:
http://www.sun-senti....wsnation-front

The most pathetic thing is that she's not even claiming anything resembing injury.

Couldn't she just smash an avocado if that's what she wants?

I'd like to see courts start imposing heavy fines for even filing such frivolous claims.

#2 of 133 Rob Gardiner

Rob Gardiner

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 15 2002

Posted November 30 2006 - 07:00 AM

No, the most pathetic thing is that Kraft sells something they call "guacamole" that isn't even made out of avocados. Posted Image

The lawsuit asks that Kraft change their labeling, which is exactly what they are doing. It will soon be known as "guacamole flavored dip".

Should we not expect products to be labeled properly, in a way that isn't misleading?

#3 of 133 Chris Lockwood

Chris Lockwood

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 3,215 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 21 1999

Posted November 30 2006 - 07:12 AM

I hope you're joking- packaged foods like that already have the ingredients listed from most to least (amount).

The word "avocado" isn't even in the freaking product name! No deception there.

I guess you missed that the product DOES have avocadoes in it... and they are probably listed near the end, meaning there isn't a lot of them.

She even admits she looked at the ingredients & noticed there wasn't much avocado... so why did she buy it?

I say award her the retail price of one jar of it, order her to pay Kraft's legal fees, and maybe another $5000 fine for a frivolous suit.

Now if the label listed avocado but didn't have any in it, or if it said it was the only or primary ingredient, that might be another issue.

Either way, there's no legal definition of what guacamole is.

What next? People suing Hormel for suing chili with beans, with the logic that "real chili doesn't have beans"?

Can I sue companies selling white chocolate, since that actually contains no chocolate?

#4 of 133 Brian D H

Brian D H

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 453 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 02 2004

Posted November 30 2006 - 07:24 AM

To answer your question; she read the ingredients only after tasting it and noticing that she didn't taste avocado. I assume that she'd already bought it at that point.

While I agree that awarding her a large settlement is absurd the lawsuit was not frivolous. This is a clear case of deliberately misleading labeling. Guacamole means avocado whether or not that's a legal definition and claiming otherwise is misleading; that's why Kraft already changed the label to "guacamole flavored". Heck, by choosing to change it to "guacamole flavored" instead of "avocado flavored" Kraft even admits that it's the same thing.

In short, while "Ketchup" doesn't necessarily mean tomato (there are other kinds), "Guacamole" always means avocado.
Lurking at HTF Since 2001

#5 of 133 Dennis Nicholls

Dennis Nicholls

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 7,538 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 1998
  • Real Name:Dennis
  • LocationBoise, ID

Posted November 30 2006 - 07:50 AM

The hidden joke is that "avocado" is also IIRC Spanish for "lawyer". Posted Image

I need some Spanish speaker to help me out with my memory here. IIRC the term avocado is derived from the fact that an avocado is shaped like a testicle. The word testicle in most languages derives from the word for testimony, as a testicle is a testimony of one's manhood. One who does testimony is a lawyer.

EDIT I'm not making this up. www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=avocado
Feline videophiles Condoleezza and Dukie.


#6 of 133 Chris Lockwood

Chris Lockwood

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 3,215 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 21 1999

Posted November 30 2006 - 07:51 AM

> she read the ingredients only after tasting it and noticing that she didn't taste avocado. I assume that she'd already bought it at that point.

Whose fault is it that she didn't read the label in the store?

I don't know what the stuff costs, but the price is probably another clue that it's not largely avocado.


> Heck, by choosing to change it to "guacamole flavored" instead of "avocado flavored" Kraft even admits that it's the same thing.

No, they're trying to avoid more frivolous suits, just like companies that put obvious warnings on products, like "don't drink the bleach".


I can't believe anyone (other than a greedy lawyer) would find such a suit to be legitimate.

#7 of 133 Jay H

Jay H

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 5,619 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 22 1999
  • Real Name:Jay
  • LocationPittsfield, MA

Posted November 30 2006 - 08:24 AM

I like avocados but can't say I'm a fan of Guacamole... Don't know why..

As far as Kraft and non-avocado Guacamole, I found this using Google..

jay
You are the crispy noodle in the vegetarian salad of life

#8 of 133 MarkHastings

MarkHastings

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 12,013 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 27 2003

Posted November 30 2006 - 08:31 AM

You know what, I commend her for seeking a little more truth in labeling (even though this is crossing the grey area as to what's considered being truthful), but it's the law suit that makes her a fucking moron. Posted Image

If she just seeking a change in the label, I'd be more sympathetic, but as of now, she's the lawsuit is just pathetic.


Hell, maybe I'll sue Coke for not using cocaine in their soda. Posted Image

#9 of 133 MarkHastings

MarkHastings

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 12,013 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 27 2003

Posted November 30 2006 - 08:37 AM

Quote:
"It just didn't taste avocadoey," said Brenda Lifsey
Ummm, it's guacamole, shouldn't the point be if it tasted "guacamoley" or not? Posted Image
Quote:
No, they're trying to avoid more frivolous suits, just like companies that put obvious warnings on products, like "don't drink the bleach".
Yeah, like that dumbass "Caution: Contents HOT!" on the cups of McDonald's and Dunkin Donuts coffee. Posted Image

#10 of 133 Mort Corey

Mort Corey

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 21 2003

Posted November 30 2006 - 08:39 AM

Though I liked the "dumpster dip" part the smoothie recipe turned my stomach a bit.

Mort (who wonders why anyone would want to buy pre made guacamole anyway)

#11 of 133 Chu Gai

Chu Gai

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 7,270 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 29 2001

Posted November 30 2006 - 08:44 AM

Let's call if Faux Guacamole then Posted Image

#12 of 133 ChristopherDAC

ChristopherDAC

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 3,729 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 18 2004

Posted November 30 2006 - 08:45 AM

I have to point out that there are standards for labelling of food products, enforced in the US by the FDA and Department of Agriculture. Sometimes they're absurdly stringent ; there was one case in which a frozen dessert product containing soybean oil and labelled "not an ice cream" was removed from the marketplace for being too much like ice cream.
In Europe, they have inspectors who measure the degree of curvature of fruits and vegetables — too much curvature, and it's no longer a "cucumber", becoming a "vegetable marrow".

"Chili with beans" has to be marked as such, precisely because the legal definition of chili con carne does not include beans. Everybody knows that avocado (to be distinguished from "abogado", L. advocatus, lawyer, a word having nothing to do with testicles) is the important ingredient in guacamole, so the complainant has a point.

#13 of 133 MarkHastings

MarkHastings

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 12,013 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 27 2003

Posted November 30 2006 - 08:55 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherDAC
Everybody knows that avocado (to be distinguished from "abogado", L. advocatus, lawyer, a word having nothing to do with testicles) is the important ingredient in guacamole, so the complainant has a point.
I don't know if he's 100% correct, but I do have to believe this:
Quote:
The government doesn't have any requirements on how much avocado a product must contain to be labeled guacamole, said Michael Herndon, a spokesman for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
So wouldn't that mean her complaint has no point at all?

#14 of 133 Holadem

Holadem

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 8,972 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2000

Posted November 30 2006 - 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Lockwood
> she read the ingredients only after tasting it and noticing that she didn't taste avocado. I assume that she'd already bought it at that point.

Whose fault is it that she didn't read the label in the store?
I shouldn't have to read the side label or fine print to make sure that a product clearly marked X is actually X.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardiner
No, the most pathetic thing is that Kraft sells something they call "guacamole" that isn't even made out of avocados. Posted Image
Exactly.

The lady has a point.

Accusations of greed on her part appear unfounded since the article clearly states that the suit is seeking class action status. Individual payouts for a class of this size are typically minuscule.

$$$ is the only language companies understand. I doubt a well written complaint to their customer service department would have changed anything. A lawsuit and the prospect of losing $$$ in punitive damages got them to do the right thing fast.

--
H

#15 of 133 MarkHastings

MarkHastings

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 12,013 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 27 2003

Posted November 30 2006 - 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holadem
Accusations of greed on her part appear unfounded since the article clearly states that the suit is seeking class action status.
OK, I'll give you that, but the woman is still a nut job....

What's a can of this dip? $2-$3? If you are unhappy with it, then throw it out, don't buy it anymore, and STFU! No need to file a law suit. There are better things to bitch about. She needs to get a life and move on. Posted Image

Better yet, she could have written an email (like most sane people do) and complain. She'd probably get her money back and some nice coupons. But this whole "I need to go on a crusade"/"Commando Shopper" thing is just silly.


p.s. I'm speaking on the fact that the product DOES contain avocado and the fact that there are no regulations on the amount used in guacamole. I am all for making manuafacturers be truthful in their products, but this isn't really a case of faulty ad. (IMHO).

#16 of 133 Eric_L

Eric_L

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,990 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 2002

Posted November 30 2006 - 11:02 AM

That's all we need - the government helping defend guacamole eaters everywhere. I'm sure glad I pay taxes for that! That's the perfect juristiction for government.

They could call it gunpowder dip but it wouldn't change the way it tastes, what it's made from or the list of ingredients clearly placed on every food product (a suitable requirement of government). It certainly would not mean there is gunpowder in it. Mandating what constitutes proper guacamole is up to the consumer - not da gubment. Obiously there are not many people who really give a shit how much avocado is in the unit or else it wouldn't sell. Simple economic. So long as the ingredients list is accurate I see no foul. What next - shall we sue Hooter's because their "Three Mile Island" style chicken wings really are not radioactive? Or maybe because the buffalo wings realy aren't made from owls like their sign implies?

#17 of 133 MarkHastings

MarkHastings

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 12,013 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 27 2003

Posted November 30 2006 - 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric_L
Or maybe because the buffalo wings realy aren't made from owls like their sign implies?
Or the fact that they aren't made out of Buffalo. Posted Image

#18 of 133 KurtEP

KurtEP

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2006

Posted November 30 2006 - 11:25 AM

We should all meekly do whatever large corporations want us to do. They have our best interests in mind after all. Posted Image
Lay down your law books now, they're no damned good -- The Eagles

#19 of 133 Chu Gai

Chu Gai

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 7,270 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 29 2001

Posted November 30 2006 - 11:27 AM

Quote:
What next - shall we sue Hooter's because their "Three Mile Island" style chicken wings really are not radioactive?
You mean there's no Polonium 210? I'm gonna tell my buddy Litvinenko.

#20 of 133 MarkHastings

MarkHastings

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 12,013 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 27 2003

Posted November 30 2006 - 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Gardiner
The lawsuit asks that Kraft change their labeling, which is exactly what they are doing. It will soon be known as "guacamole flavored dip".

Should we not expect products to be labeled properly, in a way that isn't misleading?
I have to ask why you think labeling it as "guacamole dip" is misleading, yet labeling it as "guacamole flavored dip" isn't?? I mean, if the woman claims it didn't have enough avocado to be considered guacamole (to the point where they are changing the name), then how can they claim it to be "guacamole flavored"? Posted Image

EricL gave me an idea to a simple solution - Why not just trademark every product name, then you can call it whatever you want. "Grape Nuts" cereal can put out a product without it containing grapes or nuts, so why isn't it considered faulty advertising? because the name is trademarked?

It sounds like that little TM is your "Get out of Jail Free" Card. Posted Image


Back to After Hours Lounge


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Forum Nav Content I Follow