HERSHEY, Pa. (CBS) – A Florida woman is upset about the lack of designs on Reese’s holiday-themed peanut butter candy - and now she’s taking parent company Hershey to court over it.

Cynthia Kelly filed a federal class-action lawsuit Thursday in the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Florida, alleging several Reese’s products don’t match their photos as depicted on the wrappers.

For example, Reese’s peanut butter pumpkins are merely pumpkin-shaped hunks of peanut-butter-stuffed chocolate, and the actual product has no Jack O’lantern-style carvings as the wrapper depicts, Kelly alleges.

  • Skeezix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    105
    ·
    11 months ago

    The only thing this results in is cost passed on to consumers and more anal packaging caveats.

    • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      69
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago
      1. Don’t blatantly lie

      Sure, Hershey’s broke the one rule of advertising, but god forbid we do anything about it, right? What ever would the consumer do without the bare necessity that is… weirdly-shaped Reese’s cups?

      I say this as someone who loves Reese’s, too. A reckoning in marketing law is long overdue. IMO it shouldn’t be legal to use anything other than unadulterated photos of your product as it appears off the production line.

      • Captain Aggravated
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean all they have to do is write “serving suggestion” on the front. It’s how the various oodles of noodles companies get away with showing meat and vegetables on the packages of their carbohydrate and salt rations.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t think that would fly. Sure you can make a “serving suggestion” picture of spaghetti with some photogenic sauce and on a box of spaghetti that’s perfectly adequate but if you put the same picture on a pack of Farfalle you deserve to be in trouble. Who the hell ever wants Farfalle they cook unevenly.

          “Serving suggestion” is “product and other stuff”, not “random shit”.

      • Skeezix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        36
        ·
        11 months ago

        No. I’m saying don’t celebrate this as some potential win for consumers.

        • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Why not? Wanting accurate photos on my products, while outsourcing a big chunk of monitoring and enforcement to private individuals and providing them an incentive if they do a good job at it, is a bad thing now?

          Punishing any company for bad behavior can, in some theoretical sense, get “passed on to consumers.” I’m having trouble seeing how that makes it a bad thing. In practice, I think the cost is much more likely to get passed on to the shareholders, since Hershey’s is already selling their little turd bars for whatever price maximizes their undeserved profits.

            • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              In what world is accurate product description enforced by law not a win for consumers?

              • Skeezix@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                11 months ago

                Accurate product description enforced by law is a win for consumers. This lady suing for $5 million because the face wasn’t on the chocolate is not a win for consumers. She’s engaging in the same opportunistic behaviour that we so often condemn corporations for doing. The penalty being sought is not in line with the harm suffered. If the judge doesnt throw it out, and for some reason that amount, is decided, none of the corporate management will lose a dime of their fat salaries, bonuses, or golden parachutes. If anyone suffers at all it would be the lower employees getting lower raises or bonuses, or the public upon which the cost will be levied. Holding corporations to account for their advertising and actions is a good and necessary thing. But in this particular case, it wont be a big win for anyone and should be construed as such.

                • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Honestly? I don’t agree. Yeah, it’s way too much. But on the other hand, whoever benefits from Hershey doing well, fuck 'em. Give the money to this random lady instead. If you can’t see that’s justice, I have nothing more to say to you about it.

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I hate this “don’t bite the hand that feeds” attitude of capitalism. Everyone waxes poetic about the free market and then when a company gets their comeuppance there’s all this “nooo they will punish the consumers” crying.

      Well which is it? Does a free market exist or do consumers have no power?

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Oh no, junk food will be more expensive and people might buy less of it. That would be the worst