Lest we get too excited about yesterday’s dismissal of a patently absurd lawsuit filed against McDonald’s by a couple of overweight teens, it’s worth noting that the lawyers involved in suing restaurants for their clients’ poor judgment are taking the long view. The suit’s attorney of record, Samuel Hirsch, told Fox News that doing an end-zone dance under the golden arches would be “premature.” And French-fry antagonist John Banzhaf appeared on CNNfn to announce that he’s not going away quietly.
“Actually, the suit wasn’t thrown out,” Banzhaf said, adding that “we have 30 days in which to amend the complaint. Almost certainly we will, and we’ll be back before the same judge.”
Fair enough. As the New York Post notes this morning, Judge Robert Sweet’s ruling “was based primarily on a legal technicality — and he generously gave the plaintiffs a chance to try their luck again.” But the Post puts it all into perspective by observing: “This case is not about fat kids. It’s about fat paydays. For lawyers.”
For his part, Banzhaf was on Sam Donaldson’s radio program this morning, still insisting that fast food outlets do not provide nutritional information to their customers. Funny — Forbes magazine had no trouble finding the calorie and fat content of a Big Mac on McDonalds’ website.
On last night’s Crossfire (CNN), Banzhaf hinted at his disdain for the average fast-food eater, telling hosts Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson that the “warning” labels he wants to see on sandwich wrappers “are not for the best like you guys. They are for people who are perhaps not quite as bright.”
Overall, Banzhaf continues to believe that he will eventually prevail, telling the New York Daily News: “Somewhere there is going to be a judge and a jury that will buy this, and once we get the first verdict, as we did with tobacco, it will open the floodgates.”
