Talk:McDonald's legal cases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the McDonald's legal cases article.
Article policies

This discussion board is for the article McDonald's legal cases. If you wish to post a comment about another McDonald's related topic, please see one of the associated articles:
To-do list for McDonald's legal cases: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] Opinion

    I think this has the potential to be a really interesting and informative article but there is clearly a lot of work to be done.

    Amongst other things, I have organised it into categories and I think it would help provide a more rounded picture if at least one 'brought by McDonald's' and one 'brought against McDonald's' example could be found for each case. The cases that are currently bullet-pointed should be researched and expanded into paragraphs that include the relevant detail; saying 'McDonald's sued a retaurant in Kingston, Jamaica is really not sufficient and is could be problematic for Wikipedia from a legal point of view.

    There's no need for long essays to begin with, unless the case is particularly significant (such as McLibel, which could do with some expansion), but writing a short paragraph about each under an appropriate subheading will help people find what they are looking for. Perhaps the paragraph headings for individual cases should take the format of McDonald's vs Smith, so that people looking for a specific case can find it quickly by looking at the contents box.

    There are no shortage of pictures that could be used in this article, but the challenge is in finding ones that add something to it. Everyone knows what the McDonald's logo looks like; some dramatic scenes of McDonald's representatives or their opponents coming out of court would be a lot better.

    Finally, this article needs to be categorised properly. I suspect it could be put in many categories other than McDonald's - for example, law-related subjects. Gruffle Gaw 15:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Referencing

    Given its subject, it's also very important that the article is thoroughly supported by accurate and reliable sources, which need to be referenced properly. Gruffle Gaw 15:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Restaurant in Kingston, Jamaica

    I have removed the reference to McDonald's forcing a restaurant in Kingston, Jamaica to change its name in 1971 because I can't find a ref to support this that gives specifics such as defendant's name.

    The only reference to this case is McSpotlight, or pages that have obviously been copied from that site. The McSpotlight site does not, as far as I'm aware, give specifics. Additionally, I am not keen to rely on it as the only source of information because it is clearly very anti-McDonald's (this has nothing to do with my personal views; I wouldn't rely on a McDonald's site as the sole source of information either).

    If anyone knows where we can find imaprtial, reliable information online or otherwise, feel free to put the Jamaican restarant back in and cite the source. In the meantime, I suggest we leave it off unless and until a good source can be found. Gruffle Gaw 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Scottish cafe owner

    I have deleted the part about the Scottish cafe owner for similar reasons after a couple of internet searches. I wondered if it was confused with McCoffee in San Fransisco, already mentioned and verified in the article. If this is a different case, please cite a reliable source. Gruffle Gaw 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] The real Ronald McDonald

    I searched for this online as well, and it seems the original source in Naomi Klein's book No Logo. I can't remember seeing that in the book (I've read it, but it was a long time ago).

    For the moment, I've included a link to an article about the book from a newspaper web site, which references the case. This is intended to be a temporary solution - I didn't want to take the case out of the article if it looks like a reference can be found. However, it is clearly poor referencing to quote things second hand, so if anyone can look at the book and provide an accurate reference that meets Wikipedia's referencing guidelines on books, please do. More specifics are needed about this and the information on McSpotlight (which is repeated almost word for word on a few other sites) isn't neutral or sufficiently detailed. Gruffle Gaw 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Mc Sleep

    I was very surprised that the Mc Sleep case was not included on the page and have added it, along with a link to a PDF detailing the court's opinion on the matter. This was a well-publicized case at the time, and basically established the principal that Mc Donald's owns the letters "Mc" when combined with another word, at least in the sphere of business.

    [edit] McLibel

    Why is the section about McLibel states 2002 as the date McDonald took Dave and Helen to court? Is this correct?

    [edit] Lawsuits

    Wasn't there a lawsuit where a teenage girl sued McDonald's for "making her fat" The case was eventually either thrown out or ruled in McDonald's favor (I don't remember which). I'm sure I remember people talking about this case, and even making jokes about it on late night shows. Can anybody verify this or provide more information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.244.100.209 (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

    [edit] H.R. Pufnstuf

    Should be something about the lawsuit about McDonald's ripping off the creators of H.R. Pufnstuf (see that article, McDonaldland, etc.). AnonMoos 18:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


    [edit] Apparent Vandalism

    It appears that the first section of this article has been vandalized with comments that are clearly in violation of NPOV, as well as comments that have nothing to do with the page's actual content. I have removed the comments. --Antcjone 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Ogborn case

    There's a lot of detail about this (far more than for the other examples). Perhaps it would be better off in an article of it's own; or just slimmed down. Astronaut 01:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    Looks like someone's deleted that Ogborn Case information ! Astronaut 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Burger King case

    A glaring omission: the 1982 case they brought against BK's TV ad. It can be read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_advertising Watch the advert at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXJEdV6U1Tk Apparently they banned the actress from entering their premises until the case was settled out of court! 62.49.68.222 15:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Advertising standards

    The entire section about the standards controversies, particularly about the issues that had allegedly arised in India and other countries, are written without regard to the non-point of view rule. Without the addition of references for the unsubstantiated claims (i.e., that McDonald's has lost the trust of Indians and religious groups), that section is going to be overhauled, with much of the information removed. Drendus (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Proposed name change

    To litigation involving McDonald's or McDonald's litigation. "Legal cases" is a rather awkward term, while I think "litigation" will capture everything this article is about. Postdlf (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

    Burger King legal issues, so McDonald's legal issues. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

    "Legal issues" seems unduly broad, if we're just dealing with legal disputes with private parties or governments (all of which can be characterized as "litigation"), and would probably invite a slew of commentary and reporting beyond just lawsuits. And I notice that Burger King legal issues has sections that aren't even genuine legal issues, such as the animal welfare and nutrition sections. "Controversies," perhaps (though I generally abhor the use of that word on here), but no invocation of any legal system from what I can see. Postdlf (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    Take a little closer look, most if not all of the Controversies involve a legal consequence or agreement. The CIW wants a contract guaranteeing a certain wage, the Spanish government says the company is exceeding caloric guidelines of the country and violated a gentleman's agreement with the country, the CSPI sued them in California over a similar health issue, the BK location that Rikmor opened in the Occupied territories was disputed on a basis of international law and UN directives in regards to Palestine and Israel. They are all legal issues, even when there is no formal law suit. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Relating to Litigation involving Tesco

    There is a related article concerning Tesco that is up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Litigation_involving_Tesco and if the contributors of this article could take look at the discussion and comment on its merits, it would be appreciated.Wikidea 22:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)