- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Lidl recalls Paw Patrol snacks after website on packaging displayed porn::Superstore giant Lidl recalled Paw Patrol snacks after a website listed on the packaging displayed explicit content unsuitable for children.
You must log in or register to comment.
All that food wasted for something that could be fixed within the confines of the internet.
deleted by creator
Lidl returns it’s food to the distribution centres to be turned into energy. It’s wasteful but it’s not just in the dumpster out back.
deleted by creator
How many people are actually returning this product though? Nobody is going to any effort to return a product that costs so little.
And everything I’ve read about this recall makes the reason clear so I can’t see anyone opting not to just consume it - which more than likely they already did immediately on purchase.
We have 3 packets left in the house. I’m not taking them back.
It’s not like it’s a QR code that someone could scan by accident, and my son doesn’t exactly care what the small print says on his food’s packaging.
The product they’re throwing out isn’t stuff that’s been returned, it’s every affected product they have in stock, which could be loads. Not even donated. Just tossed out.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
I agree, however, the domain had apparently expired (according to the article), which makes it a great deal harder to fix reasonably fast. I still think issuing a statement that they’d lost control of the domain would suffice, but no, apparently wasting food is better for the bottom line.
I get why they recall it, but let’s be honest. How many people visit an URL found on food packaging? It’s made for fans of the paw patrol show, and most kids that age don’t come further then whatever game is popular on ios and android.
In reality they should have just said nothing, by recalling it and notifying the general public far more people are going to be aware of this. Had they just said nothing it probably would have flown way under the radar
Could have been against the law if they knew they had compromised package labels that displayed porn to children and they did nothing about it.
They noticed their error and took at least symbolic steps to fix it. This is the right way to deal with errors. Ignoring/hiding almost always backfires.
Someone did notice it and informed them. If they did nothing then they could get in trouble for inaction.
Porn patrol
Anyone who wants to send one of those packages to me for, um, research purposes, please do so.
(NSFW / Chinese Adware / Possible Malware)
No malware was noticed but I’d use uBlock and a VPN, disable JavaScript, and a good antivirus at a minimum…
If you want to know what it linked to, someone posted the link in another community. It seemed to be a Chinese landing site (looks like something along the lines of a “this domain could be yours”), with a bunch of affiliate porn ads (read: 88px X 88px animated gifs) like you might have seen in the mid 2000s.
I couldn’t read any of it because it’s in Chinese, but that’s the gist of it.
Free biscotti and a link to free porn sounds great. I’ll happily take the recalled product off their hands for disposal.
See? Now you get it.
The domain is mentioned in the article.
well, the url in question is in the article
Thank you for ruining my joke.
I have one of the packets in my hand.
I have checked and can confirm that it’s true.
Am I going to take it back to Lidl? Am I fuck.
I would have thought something named Paw Patrol would be a dog treat…
Uhh why not take down the site instead of wasting perfectly edible products?
They don’t own the site. Per the article - the URL is no longer owned and the webhost just added random ad links to it in the case of false positives (which is very common) and porn ads bought the cheap space (which is also very common).
So they could have bought the site and taken care of it for minimal cost.
I assure you that the cost/benefit analysis of recalling the flawed packaging versus buying the site was done.
At least three different groups of people, and probably four, maybe five, were involved in this entire process and the recall is almost certainly the fastest and most financially-viable option considering the chain of custody of the packaging.
Read the article?
Getting a real bang for your buck!
Quite the shock here. Recalling it is the right move.
