• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    130
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    On the surface this might sound silly but after looking at the chocolate it’s straight up false advertisement. They know people will buy it specifically because of the way it looks. It’s bait and switch.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      72
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yeah, this isn’t like a fast food burger that isn’t quite as elegantly stacked as it appears on a tv commercial or something. This is clearly advertising a candy with a jack-o-lantern shaped cutout in the chocolate while selling you something different. It makes for a silly headline that’s perfect for this community, but if she wants to sue them over it I’m gonna side with her on this one.

      It’s deceptive and corporations shouldn’t be allowed to get away with crap like this. Because if we let them get away with this little lie they won’t stop there. They will only get bolder and more egregious.

    • @CouldntCareBear
      link
      English
      366 months ago

      And shame on business insider to down play it as someone complaining they’re not ‘cute’ enough.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    816 months ago

    Honestly, I feel her. I opened one of these in my child’s Halloween candy bag and felt misled.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      106 months ago

      Last time I saw this someone mentioned the football ones. They are basically the same shape as the eggs for Easter, but show the lines on a football in the packaging.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        46 months ago

        We call those “eggballs” for that reason. Gotta hand it to Hershey for finding a second use for that pattern like that.

  • @[email protected]
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    786 months ago

    The way the headline is worded makes me think it’s trying to spark outrage and debate against the woman suing.

    But also boy did I learn my lesson about not judging Joe Shmoe vs Corporate after learning more about the McDonald’s hot coffee case.

    I’m gonna withhold judgement and see where this ends up!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The McDonald’s lady required skin grafts. This woman suffered mild disappointment. There is no possible comparison between the two cases. False advertising? Yes. Refer to FTC for penalties. Harm suffered? Virtually zero. This is a frivolous lawsuit and waste of any court’s time.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        216 months ago

        It’s a class action lawsuit. It represents the rights of an entire group, even if it’s only a single person bringing forward the suit. It’s not about the harm done to a single person.

        If a thief steals one dollar from a thousand people, you could say “oh, that person only lost a dollar” or you could say “that thief stole a thousand dollars”. The harm suffered to each individual was minimal, but harm was suffered, and if you add it all up, a lot of harm was done. That’s not frivolous.

      • @[email protected]
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        116 months ago

        I think that’s what the headline is trying to get you to say. And we had the same reaction with the McDonald’s case. But I hope we’re getting a bit wiser that when the story is spun this way it’s not too far out there to think that the corporation could have employed a media consultant to help spin this as “Americans sue over everything this case is dumb” when in reality there might be a good case under there that it’s easy to dismiss or ignore.

        I suspect that’s the low hanging spin for corporations who are being held accountable. “Don’t sue us, that’s dumb! Look how dumb she’s being. Entitled! Money grab!”

        • I totally agree with the notion that the article is meant to illicit that thinking as well as it being false advertising, but at the same time this particular case doesn’t have quite the same impact as the McDonald’s Coffee case. Nobody is physically being harmed by the candy not having a face. What could be deeper than simply the disappointment of not seeing that little jack-o’-lantern face when you unwrap the peanut butter cup?

      • TheOneCurly
        link
        fedilink
        English
        46 months ago

        Do you want companies to follow the law or not? Why even have truth in advertising laws if no one is going to enforce them?

  • @sbv
    link
    English
    666 months ago

    LET’S FUCKING GO

    • @Cockmaster6000
      link
      English
      476 months ago

      False advertising bastards let’s bring em down!

  • @SonicBlue03
    link
    English
    296 months ago

    They’re fixing this. Next Halloween these will be known as Reese’s Peanut Butter Blobs.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    166 months ago

    I’d never noticed. They go into my mouth hole so fast that I can’t say I’ve looked at the actual design.

  • Boozilla
    link
    fedilink
    English
    166 months ago

    They need to label it more clearly. The thing in the package is what the jack o’ lantern pooped out.

  • @Tremble
    link
    English
    146 months ago

    She should win, it might seem dumb, but she thought of it first

  • @[email protected]
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    56 months ago

    The lawsuit also takes issue with the Reese’s Peanut Butter Footballs, which have carved out laces on their packaging, but instead “look like an egg” when viewing the actual product.

    LACES OUT, DAN!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    26 months ago

    I missed my chance to sue because I had a Pepsi in the 80-90s and I wasn’t dancing like a maniac afterwards.