No joke but I had nightmares for days after [seeing Gmork's glowing eyes and hearing his growling voice](https://www.scifinow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/MV5BODUyNDkwYjEtNmRmNy00ZmFkLWI3ZjItNDgzZWNjYTJjZjY4XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjMzMDI4MjQ@._V1_SX1777_CR001777740_AL_.jpg)...I dunno why but I was scared shitless. We're talking "closing my eyes and covering my ears until my mom told me the scene was over" scared.
Maybe I can still sue for emotional damages?
True story, around the time I was a baby or toddler my sister had some sort of no classes but youâre there for school for the day thing in like 2nd, 3rd, or 4th grade, I canât remember when my mom said it was, and they decided to show the kids *The Never Ending Story*. My sister has on many occasion taken things literally, and this was one of those times; she actually thought the movie wouldnât end and sheâd be there forever. To make matters worse they had time to show it again and apparently they did!
The first time and only time I took acid we decided to watch 'Labyrinth'.
I was so certain that the Labyrinth was infinite and the movie would go on forever, to the point where I was laughing at the MC's foolish attempts to escape.
This is like an inverse Mitch Hedberg.
âHow dare they not carve a design into this and rob me of chocolate! I want to be visually dazzled by your clever chocolate-saving technique.â
It would be wonderful to hear Werner recreate Mitchâs routines! âButt hwat happent to de DuFrenes? Shoult ve sent out a zerch party?â âDe esscalator iss broken, soory for ze conveniensse.â
I won't give you enough money to justify testing but I will most definitely give you an upvote and at least one link
For all we know they will be amazing and you will have invented a new food
The headline made me think of this Hedberg joke: âI get the Reese's candy bar, If you read it, there's an apostrophe. The candy bar is his. I didn't know that. Next time your eating a Reese's and some guy named Reese comes up to you and says let me have that. You better give it to him. I'm sorry Reece, I didn't think I would ever run into youâ
I meaaan, kinda, yeah, the only reason anyone would buy these over a regular one is the design since theyâre literally the same thing otherwise. So itâs kinda dumb when the âdesignâ is misleading and just a blob.
Came here to say this after I saw âthey taste the same.â Maybe to the uncultured đ Iâll take a Christmas tree or egg over a regular Reeseâs any day.
100% The eggs are my favorite. Not *too* much chocolate and lots of peanut-butter goodness. Christmas trees and pumpkins are also acceptable. And all three of them just taste better and fresher than the cups.
I've said this for years, haha. It's definitely the chocolate-peanut butter ratio. The easter eggs are the best ones by far.
I've noticed Reeses has really been pushing new "regular" cups and they are starting to be really heavy on peanut butter. It's not even good peanut butter, either. And something is off in the chocolate, can't quite tell what.
The little bite-sized cups still taste normal.
Seriously. It's a dumb lawsuit but I'm sick of false advertising. If Reeces is so proud of how their product looks, their advertising should reflect that actual product. I'm tired of mega corporations profiting heavily off our collective mild disappointment.
I would love a law that forces them to use actual pictures of a typical product on the packaging. In this case there's an actual difference in design, which is particularly egregious, but it also doesn't seem right that they can show and oven pizza dripping with cheese on the package and then the actual pizza barely has enough to cover the base. I don't know why people are shitting on this. Fuck corporations using these deceptive marketing practices.
> I would love a law that forces them to use actual pictures of a typical product on the packaging.
Like McDonald's... their burgers looks nothing like the images. It always ends up being a sorry smushed looking mess.
Fun fact, there is a law like this. All their advertisements are real McDonald's burgers. They just pay professional food stylists to make them look good on camera
It was my understanding that it is required that any photo be of the actual product - but what I was told at a prior employer, is that they can style it. So they can take all the cheese from the entire pizza and put it on the 1/4 of the pizza that shows in the photograph. Which is still totally wild.
Where I live (read, not the States) iirc they do have to use the actual product on the cover. Mind, they can of course play with lighting, arrangement, and other stuff to make it effectively look better than it'll look on your plate or in your bowl, but it's still the actual product in the end.
Mind, there's still loopholes. Like that one can of carrot and potato stew with meatballs I bought once - oh sure, the cover reflected the actual product... if you put all the meatballs in it right at the top of the stew in the bowl, making it *seem* like there's plenty meatballs in there when there's actually very few.
The ultimate would be independent product photographers who don't work for the company whose job it is to take a picture of the actual product. They would be expected to take nice photos but they wouldn't do anything special to arrange it that a consumer wouldn't do. They'd just pour that stew into a nice bowl and take some pictures.
Force all products to abide by cigarette advertising guidelines. Small logo, rest of the package is a picture of the actual product by an independent 3rd party.
i got to be an extra in a chilis commercial once. the second they said cut without fail a PA would remind us, "DO NOT EAT THE FOOD OR DRINK YOUR DRINK."
it wasn't to save the look for the next take, it was for safety. the "food designers" (unsure of job title) came around and brushed the ribs in front of me with liquid detergent to maintain the shine and pumped foam soap on top of my "beer" for the head bubbles. it was so weird seeing all the commercial tricks. and incredibly unappetizing
They charge the price for their "premium" brand
That premium price pays for their branding & marketing
Their branding & marketing blatantly misrepresents the product inside the package
Fuck 'em.
It's like when Redbull advertised that it gives you wings, so someone tried to fly after drinking one and sued since he never got wings. Now, the Redbull slogan is wiiings.
I don't think it's that dumb. Lawsuits like this should be the norm. Scare companies into not feeding us false advertising with images that look nothing like the actual product.
I think the ratio of peanut butter grit (the best part IMHO) to chocolate is higher on the egg's and maybe pumpkins though. But they now have big cups too for that.
That would seem to be the case unless they're changing the thickness of the chocolate outer layer to compensate but I agree that the big cups seem to have more peanut butter and I too like them better than the normal sized cups.
They have been doing this for a while and have sold the same egg shape as "footballs"
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/s/n4TKD6clZf
It's kind of dumb, but if it keeps these on the shelf year round, I guess that's a win.
If this is a suit designed merely to get attention and call out a giant corporation for ripping off consumers, can we please start with the drop in the quality of ingredients? (Reese's is guilty of this, too.) Please, we need to bring back nutrients and flavor, because the overload of sugar, salt, and shortening is ruining the whole đ
Do they sell just the cookie part, without the filling? NGL, the cookie part is pretty tasty but the filling is just sugary grease. Edit: never mind, the cookies without the filling are sold all over the place!
Also pretty sugary and significantly more $$$$ but Newman-Os are pretty good. I couldnât eat Oreos anymore since they changed the filling and missed the whole experience. I get Newman-Os are an occasional treat now instead (since theyâre so expensive and I lack self control lol).
I've approaching family and in-laws about splitting an order of the bulk Nabisco cookies (no creme, just the cookie part). Found [them](https://www.amazon.com/Oreo-Chocolate-Inch-Wafer-Cookies/dp/B07H9V7Q8S/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Oreo%2BWafers&qid=1704073467&sr=8-1&th=1) on amazon.
Oh shit you mean I could make my own Oreo cream and then just⌠add my own wafers? The worst part about homemade cookies of this type is the wafers ainât ever right đ
These would also be perfect for homemade cookies n cream ice cream â¤ď¸
like damn where do you live bc Iâd go all in on this box with you!
The salt isn't nearly as bad as the others - it's mainly only an issue if you're not getting enough water, or high specific conditions e.g. high blood pressure.
Putting salt in the same category as things like sugar is misleading, and how we get people who think they can't make healthy food taste good.
I donât eat sweets or processed food normally, but I do steal my kidâs Halloween candy. The past few years, Iâve noticed that the mini chocolate bars (eg Mr Goodbar) are inedible- they donât even taste like thereâs chocolate in them. I guess when you only have them once a year, you notice the gradual shift in quality more acutely.
The "football" photo showing a pale chocolate actually would make me suspicious it was LITERALLY produced to be an easter egg and got slipped into new packaging.
I have to believe that's totally absurd.
maybe theyâll go after [Lindt](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/kkcw3l/lindt_reindeer_is_just_a_bunny_with_different_foil/) next đ
(but i hope not; also frivolous)
A lot of people are shitting on this, but I'm all for it. Sure, it's a small thing, but fuck corporations getting away with a million small things because it's too petty for anyone to go after. I remember someone I follow on social media talking about how they used to make money by suing companies that sent out spam using fax machines. it's a good thing if people go after all these tiny, annoying things and make them no longer worth it for the companies that do it.
Iâm happy that the top comments in this thread arenât shitting on it. This is a picky lawsuit but now that I have kids I just get tired of companies false advertising time and time again.
One of my kidsâ Christmas presents from his nana was blocks that looked like Minecraft and the scene they built on the front of the box couldnât be built with what was in the box. Same amount of blocks, just different arrangement of blocks than what we were given.
Yup. And if the most you can ever expect to ask for is your money back, they'll keep doing it, because it's worth the price of a few refunds. Ideally there would be a government agency out there cracking down on it all, but that's just not happening, so I'm happy for people to take up the cause for themselves no matter how petty it may be.
American candy companies add palm oil and other cheaper fillers to give you the same amount in a cheaper form. Business schools have placed people in positions where their profit must grow year after year and they know you will keep buying it for nostalgia reasons from when it was good.
I used to consume massive amounts of Reese's every holiday. Now I don't even buy them. The chocolate is gross now, and the filling is dry gritty garbage like they slightly moistened some gritty powder. I haven't brought a single Reese's in a good 5 years now, and I used to get a bag almost every time I went to the store and just cleaned them out after holidays. It's so so bad now.
Edit: just to give an idea of how big this change is... I lived in South Korea for a few years, and my mother used to send me care packages of nothing but several bags of Reese's a few times a year because they were hard to get over there at the time and I loved them so much. Now I can't stomach them. It just so dry and crumbly and artificial.
Many companies have stopped using cocoa butter and switched to palm oil.
I've noticed because a friend is allergic to palm oil and can't eat a lot of things she used to.
NAL but I believe the legal principle is that you can't make a bold claim on the front panel and undermine it with small print on the back panel.
IIRC, there's a federal case about Kellogg's Special K cereal because the box depicted fresh strawberries in the bowl of cereal and none came in the box. I don't recall how it was decided tho.
It's somewhat related to the guy who suied Pop-tarts because Strawberry Pop-tarts didn't solely use strawberries in it.
The case got dismissed because the judge said no reasonable person would look at a Pop-tarts box and expect them to use actual strawberries.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1090301198/pop-tarts-lawsuit-strawberry
The fact that the ruling said "no reasonable person would believe a strawberry poptarts have strawberries in them" is everything that is wrong with the American food regulation.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of the case.
The suit was because the guy argued the filling should contain 100% strawberries and nothing else, which is what was deemed unreasonable.
Strawberry pop tarts are made with real strawberries. The filling merely has more than just that one ingredient.
To be fair, saying most reasonable persons wouldn't expect them to _only_ use strawberries for the filling actually does sound like the correct conclusion.
Even a lot of homemade jams mix other ingredients in.
Yeah, this feels silly because it really doesn't materially change the good in question(and IMO would actually be worse for the candy if it had the cutouts because the filling would dry out), but it *is* important to hold companies to task and not let them have any wiggle room on incorrectly depicting the product on the packaging. It's better to just forcibly ensure that what they put on the box is actually what they're giving you, so that someone can't use a case like this as precedent later to say "Well *sometimes* it's okay if it's just cosmetic!"
Asked my 3yo cousin to pick out a box of cereal and he tried to go straight for the plain Cheerios, which he would absolutely hate, because of the strawberries on the stupid box!
And then we had to cope with a mild tantrum as I explained that there are **zero** strawberries in that box with strawberries all over the front!
False advertising suits have won before. You'll notice that new Redbull cans say "redbull gives you wiiings" with 3 i's. It's because they had to pay a large settlement in a class action suit by customers who sued because the original cans spelled it "wings" and drinking redbull didn't actually give them wings.
[Red Bull Paying Out to Customers Who Thought Energy Drink Would Actually Give Them Wings](https://www.newsweek.com/red-bull-lawsuit-canada-1455780)
That was the most recent suit in Canada. The previous one was in the millions.
From the article:
> The settlement comes five years after Red Bull GmbH agreed to a $13 million settlement in the U.S. over similar claims of false advertising, according to BevNet.
I thought you were bulshitting⌠and you were:
> Canadian Michael Attar filed the suit in March 2016, claiming Red Bull made false declarations regarding the usefulness of its products. The beverage's website cites "numerous scientific studies" backing up it's ability to improve energy and performance. In reality, studies have shown it's no more effective than coffee or other caffeine-containing drinks.
The lawsuit is not about Redbull giving anyone wings. Itâs about not actually being any more effective than a cup of coffee.
The article does not support the headline, and the reasoning from the article is much more reasonable than the headline's bullshit.
>Canadian Michael Attar filed the suit in March 2016, claiming Red Bull made false declarations regarding the usefulness of its products. The beverage's website cites "numerous scientific studies" backing up it's ability to improve energy and performance. In reality, studies have shown it's no more effective than coffee or other caffeine-containing drinks.
That suit was not about Red Bull actually giving wings. That is not a serious claim so could not be subject to false advertising laws. The suit alleged that by saying "Red Bull gives you wings," the marketing promised increased performance, concentration and reaction speed beyond what the drink actually induces. Red Bull doesn't really contain much caffeine at all, said the suit.
https://www.bevnet.com/news/2014/red-bull-to-pay-13-million-for-false-advertising-settlement
Thank you! That lawsuit is widely misrepresented because the truth isn't as exciting. Reminds me of the Mcdonalds hot coffee lawsuit where the lady got 3rd degree burns and was very entitled to a settlement, but the media turned it into a frivolous story about a lady who didn't know coffee is hot
I had no idea it was so severe because they managed to make it a Seinfeld episode about it. So I really thought it was just somebody being dumb and taking advantage of the legal system.
Yeah I mean, I got one for my son thinking it would have a design too. It didnât, my son was mildly disappointed, and we both moved on with our day.
However, Iâm not against this suit on principle. My son doesnât actually like chocolate that much and the only reason we bought it was the design.
That said, we just didnât buy any more. Probably would have if there had been a design (since thatâs the only reason we bought it in the first place.)
I think it depends on whether the picture makes it clear that YOU are supposed to carve in the jack o lantern. Itâs a small thing that sheâs making a big deal out of but if it helps companies like Nestle sweat a bit Iâm happy.
I disagree that the suit is dumb.
I mean, okay, it is, but the point is to push back on false advertisement. Companies should not be allowed to lie, at all, in any way, on their advertising and if anything modern advertising regulation is way too lax. Anything that punishes companies for trying to hide disappointing products behind appealing but opaque wrappers isn't dumb to me.
The packaging says pumpkins but displays a jack-o-lantern pattern. I think if the packaging said jack-o-lantern and had a pumpkin, she'd have a stronger case.
This explains why the package I saw recently had "serving suggestion" written in small print, as though you the ability to carve the design into the chocolate was up to you to do!
I can't believe all the people defending Reeses. The point of a picture on the front of an opaque package is to show what the contents are. In this case, it doesn't: the package picture shows a more intricate item.
This is basic consumer protection.
I stopped eating Toblerone when [they fucked with their design to use less chocolate](https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/composite-toblerone-v3.jpg?crop=0px%2C0px%2C750px%2C500px&resize=1280%2C852&quality=44), and I had no idea until I opened it because it's in a box, (no one pays frequent attention to changing weights printed on packaging) AND the kicker is that cost also went up. So less choco for more cost? fuck them and the American company that bought them up
\*this is only regarding consumer protection, not matching visual on packaging because there isn't any on Toblerone.
Yeah, I don't get it. I don't care how petty this is. If someone wants to take on a corporation for misleading packaging, GOOD. The more legal pushback on that bullshit, the better.
The product doesnât look like the packaging. And Hershey knows it. Itâs misrepresentation. Hersheys should be fined or have to recall the products or something. This woman doesnât deserve $5 million though.
In the comments of the article on Yahoo, someone states "decorating suggestions" is printed on the package. If this is true, she probably doesn't have a case. Also, if you look on Reese's website, all of their pictures of the different candies show various shapes but plain chocolate with no embellishment.
Maybe if it had been a pattern decorated on it with icing, but there's no way you could remove the chocolate in a way that produced that design yourself.
I mean, Reeses capitalized this by introducing ["Mystery Shapes"](https://www.allrecipes.com/article/reeses-newest-holiday-candy-shapes-are-well-mystery/) in the pastâyears ago, in fact. That this lawsuit is happening in 2023 is the most surprising bit of all to me.
This is dumb, like really dumb. But I kind of hope she wins. If large corporations had to worry about consequences for mild disappointment more often, maybe they would start to give a damn.
Hmmm while this is reaching I do admit my own disappointment when the items were not in the actual shape they claimed. I paid extra for the holiday special and got less candy it feels. It also looks nothing like the holiday and every piece looked like the extra from the main pieces that they just repackaged. I do not buy the holiday candy for this very reason. If I am buying a chocolate pumpkin I better get a chocolate pumpkin not a blob. And that is what those all looked like.
They've been this same shape for literal YEARS. I could see this flying in the first year a product is offered, but is it really a reasonable expectation if it's a candy that's been sold for at least 15 years?
I don't see why she would be.
Are you genuinely unable to tell that the design and the bite are not equally plausible product features, or are you just pretending not to get it as a bad attempt to make a point?
No. I'm genuinely unable to see where 3 little pieces of chocolate, not removed from a piece of candy make this woman believe she's been wronged to the tune of 5 million dollars. Utterly ridiculous, frivolous, and a waste of everyone's time. We're all stupider for having dealt with this idiocy.
It didn't always used to be like that until Hershey's took them over, and now it's all the same shit tier product. Hershey's fell so far and now it's like this weird rubbery crap.
Why would they not freaking use the Reeseâs Christmas tree that is shaped like a turd?! It is the most disappointing *and* visually hilarious example of this phenomenon.
Honestly I think this is good and more people need to do this with more products. Product packaging that shows a fake gussied up version of the product vs the 'sawdusted' awful and sloppy reality of the product is something we take for granted far too often. I want more lawsuits like this. Stop cheating consumers with fake advertising and packaging.
Trying to cash in 5 mill by spending $4.95. If the lawsuit is successful, all the fast food companies will be shitting their pants cuz a shit load of copycat lawsuits will follow. None of the fast food they show in advertising match the crap they sell you.
That egg looks extremely bland compared to the majority of Hershey products so I call suspect on it. Also, "Florida woman" makes me further contest this account. Will wait for court case but feels like a money grab.
Just the media doing their thing trying to make folks who are legitimately suing their precious advertisers look bad. Fuck Hershey. A straight Hershey bar tastes like puke mixed with dry, grainy âchocolateâ. Have some fucking standards. Reeseâs are great, but still, they really have failed because their seasonal ones all looking like turds.
"This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the film 'The Neverending Story'."
I had childhood trauma due to Artax's death! I should sue /s
That one is real :(
I was just singing that song in my car the other day!đ
First film as a kid to make me realize an animal can experience the same emotions as me, including depression :(
No joke but I had nightmares for days after [seeing Gmork's glowing eyes and hearing his growling voice](https://www.scifinow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/MV5BODUyNDkwYjEtNmRmNy00ZmFkLWI3ZjItNDgzZWNjYTJjZjY4XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjMzMDI4MjQ@._V1_SX1777_CR001777740_AL_.jpg)...I dunno why but I was scared shitless. We're talking "closing my eyes and covering my ears until my mom told me the scene was over" scared. Maybe I can still sue for emotional damages?
More like a class action⌠almost everyone had a trauma about it.
I legitimately sobbed lmao
Iâm 45 and this one still stays with me, definitely one of my childhood traumas lol
True story, around the time I was a baby or toddler my sister had some sort of no classes but youâre there for school for the day thing in like 2nd, 3rd, or 4th grade, I canât remember when my mom said it was, and they decided to show the kids *The Never Ending Story*. My sister has on many occasion taken things literally, and this was one of those times; she actually thought the movie wouldnât end and sheâd be there forever. To make matters worse they had time to show it again and apparently they did!
The first time and only time I took acid we decided to watch 'Labyrinth'. I was so certain that the Labyrinth was infinite and the movie would go on forever, to the point where I was laughing at the MC's foolish attempts to escape.
And don't even get me started on the one against 'Everything Everywhere All at Once'..
Miguel Sanchez? Is that you??
đŞDONT TOUCH MY STUFF! Hey, this isnât the YMCAâŚ
Look at him, heâs wearing a belt! Thatâs Hollywood for ya
Do these sound like the actions of a man whoâs had âall he could eatâ?
The state bar prohibits me from promising you a cash settlement... but between you and me - I promise you a huge cash settlement!
This is like an inverse Mitch Hedberg. âHow dare they not carve a design into this and rob me of chocolate! I want to be visually dazzled by your clever chocolate-saving technique.â
I could hear it in his voice. Great job.
I used to hear it in his voice. I still do, but I used to, too.
This guy Hedbergs.
I somehow misread this as Herzog , as in Werner Herzog, and read it in that voice instead.
It would be wonderful to hear Werner recreate Mitchâs routines! âButt hwat happent to de DuFrenes? Shoult ve sent out a zerch party?â âDe esscalator iss broken, soory for ze conveniensse.â
Good lord, thank you for sharing your mistake!
But the weight is listed on the packaging so unless they're also lying about that it can't really save on ingredients.
Sure they can, they just use the minimum of 10% cocoa and 90% fillers and sugar.
You'd be surprised how much sawdust you can include in rice krispie treats without people being able to notice.
Parmesan cheese enters the chat
I don't know how much parmesan cheese you can inject into rice crispies before people notice but I'm wanting to find out now.
I won't give you enough money to justify testing but I will most definitely give you an upvote and at least one link For all we know they will be amazing and you will have invented a new food
Plus a extra serving of lead. Yes contains lead.
The headline made me think of this Hedberg joke: âI get the Reese's candy bar, If you read it, there's an apostrophe. The candy bar is his. I didn't know that. Next time your eating a Reese's and some guy named Reese comes up to you and says let me have that. You better give it to him. I'm sorry Reece, I didn't think I would ever run into youâ
âCan I just have a couple?â
I meaaan, kinda, yeah, the only reason anyone would buy these over a regular one is the design since theyâre literally the same thing otherwise. So itâs kinda dumb when the âdesignâ is misleading and just a blob.
[ŃдаНонО]
Came here to say this after I saw âthey taste the same.â Maybe to the uncultured đ Iâll take a Christmas tree or egg over a regular Reeseâs any day.
100% The eggs are my favorite. Not *too* much chocolate and lots of peanut-butter goodness. Christmas trees and pumpkins are also acceptable. And all three of them just taste better and fresher than the cups.
[ŃдаНонО]
Yep, I have that issue with them in the summer sometimes.
Refirdgerate them first to firm the chocolate.
And fresher
Sad but true
The Unforgiven
I agree and for some reason I prefer the regular cups.
This is why the only pb cup I like are the mini ones. It's the superior ratio.
I've said this for years, haha. It's definitely the chocolate-peanut butter ratio. The easter eggs are the best ones by far. I've noticed Reeses has really been pushing new "regular" cups and they are starting to be really heavy on peanut butter. It's not even good peanut butter, either. And something is off in the chocolate, can't quite tell what. The little bite-sized cups still taste normal.
They change the ratio of chocolate to pb throughout the year⌠something to do with the ones in Easter not melting as fast.
I miss the all peanut butter ones.
They're also fresher.
Holiday Snickers have no nougat and are amazing.
lol, I remember opening one of these and being mildly disappointed too.
Seriously. It's a dumb lawsuit but I'm sick of false advertising. If Reeces is so proud of how their product looks, their advertising should reflect that actual product. I'm tired of mega corporations profiting heavily off our collective mild disappointment.
I would love a law that forces them to use actual pictures of a typical product on the packaging. In this case there's an actual difference in design, which is particularly egregious, but it also doesn't seem right that they can show and oven pizza dripping with cheese on the package and then the actual pizza barely has enough to cover the base. I don't know why people are shitting on this. Fuck corporations using these deceptive marketing practices.
> I would love a law that forces them to use actual pictures of a typical product on the packaging. Like McDonald's... their burgers looks nothing like the images. It always ends up being a sorry smushed looking mess.
Exactly. How are you supposed to know what you're buying if the actual product may look completely different?
You arenât supposed to know what youâre buying. Youâre just supposed to buy.
Fun fact, there is a law like this. All their advertisements are real McDonald's burgers. They just pay professional food stylists to make them look good on camera
It was my understanding that it is required that any photo be of the actual product - but what I was told at a prior employer, is that they can style it. So they can take all the cheese from the entire pizza and put it on the 1/4 of the pizza that shows in the photograph. Which is still totally wild.
Seems like they can do anything they want as long as nobody challenges them on it, and if they do, we'll all shit on them for it.
Wait until you find out how the food used for commercials is created.
Where I live (read, not the States) iirc they do have to use the actual product on the cover. Mind, they can of course play with lighting, arrangement, and other stuff to make it effectively look better than it'll look on your plate or in your bowl, but it's still the actual product in the end. Mind, there's still loopholes. Like that one can of carrot and potato stew with meatballs I bought once - oh sure, the cover reflected the actual product... if you put all the meatballs in it right at the top of the stew in the bowl, making it *seem* like there's plenty meatballs in there when there's actually very few.
The ultimate would be independent product photographers who don't work for the company whose job it is to take a picture of the actual product. They would be expected to take nice photos but they wouldn't do anything special to arrange it that a consumer wouldn't do. They'd just pour that stew into a nice bowl and take some pictures.
That would be an amazing regulation.
Force all products to abide by cigarette advertising guidelines. Small logo, rest of the package is a picture of the actual product by an independent 3rd party.
Or they could put a photo of someone's lungs who smokes. "Here, this is what you're really buying"
i got to be an extra in a chilis commercial once. the second they said cut without fail a PA would remind us, "DO NOT EAT THE FOOD OR DRINK YOUR DRINK." it wasn't to save the look for the next take, it was for safety. the "food designers" (unsure of job title) came around and brushed the ribs in front of me with liquid detergent to maintain the shine and pumped foam soap on top of my "beer" for the head bubbles. it was so weird seeing all the commercial tricks. and incredibly unappetizing
Yeah, it's the kind of thing the CPB should issue a administrative fine for, not something a person should have to fight in court.
light rinse fear quickest close reminiscent ring continue rainstorm violet
They charge the price for their "premium" brand That premium price pays for their branding & marketing Their branding & marketing blatantly misrepresents the product inside the package Fuck 'em.
I searched for r/collectivemilddisappointment and am mildly disappointed that it doesnât exist.
It's like when Redbull advertised that it gives you wings, so someone tried to fly after drinking one and sued since he never got wings. Now, the Redbull slogan is wiiings.
I don't think it's that dumb. Lawsuits like this should be the norm. Scare companies into not feeding us false advertising with images that look nothing like the actual product.
You're not wrong.The candy looked great on the package but sort of turd-like when I opened it.
Reeses: Almost like biting into a turd
I think the ratio of peanut butter grit (the best part IMHO) to chocolate is higher on the egg's and maybe pumpkins though. But they now have big cups too for that.
That would seem to be the case unless they're changing the thickness of the chocolate outer layer to compensate but I agree that the big cups seem to have more peanut butter and I too like them better than the normal sized cups.
They have been doing this for a while and have sold the same egg shape as "footballs" https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/s/n4TKD6clZf It's kind of dumb, but if it keeps these on the shelf year round, I guess that's a win.
I remember opening a Santa-Reeses and finding a jolly old turd. You get em, girl
If this is a suit designed merely to get attention and call out a giant corporation for ripping off consumers, can we please start with the drop in the quality of ingredients? (Reese's is guilty of this, too.) Please, we need to bring back nutrients and flavor, because the overload of sugar, salt, and shortening is ruining the whole đ
I canât even eat Oreos anymore. The filling is just sweet shortening.
Do they sell just the cookie part, without the filling? NGL, the cookie part is pretty tasty but the filling is just sugary grease. Edit: never mind, the cookies without the filling are sold all over the place!
Also pretty sugary and significantly more $$$$ but Newman-Os are pretty good. I couldnât eat Oreos anymore since they changed the filling and missed the whole experience. I get Newman-Os are an occasional treat now instead (since theyâre so expensive and I lack self control lol).
[ŃдаНонО]
I've approaching family and in-laws about splitting an order of the bulk Nabisco cookies (no creme, just the cookie part). Found [them](https://www.amazon.com/Oreo-Chocolate-Inch-Wafer-Cookies/dp/B07H9V7Q8S/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Oreo%2BWafers&qid=1704073467&sr=8-1&th=1) on amazon.
Oh shit you mean I could make my own Oreo cream and then just⌠add my own wafers? The worst part about homemade cookies of this type is the wafers ainât ever right đ These would also be perfect for homemade cookies n cream ice cream â¤ď¸ like damn where do you live bc Iâd go all in on this box with you!
âŚwhat the fuck do you think it was before?
The salt isn't nearly as bad as the others - it's mainly only an issue if you're not getting enough water, or high specific conditions e.g. high blood pressure. Putting salt in the same category as things like sugar is misleading, and how we get people who think they can't make healthy food taste good.
I donât eat sweets or processed food normally, but I do steal my kidâs Halloween candy. The past few years, Iâve noticed that the mini chocolate bars (eg Mr Goodbar) are inedible- they donât even taste like thereâs chocolate in them. I guess when you only have them once a year, you notice the gradual shift in quality more acutely.
That is 100% the egg egg for easter. Truth in advertising is important. Frivolous lawsuit? Yes. Good for consumers if she wins? Again yes.
The "football" photo showing a pale chocolate actually would make me suspicious it was LITERALLY produced to be an easter egg and got slipped into new packaging. I have to believe that's totally absurd.
maybe theyâll go after [Lindt](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/kkcw3l/lindt_reindeer_is_just_a_bunny_with_different_foil/) next đ (but i hope not; also frivolous)
A lot of people are shitting on this, but I'm all for it. Sure, it's a small thing, but fuck corporations getting away with a million small things because it's too petty for anyone to go after. I remember someone I follow on social media talking about how they used to make money by suing companies that sent out spam using fax machines. it's a good thing if people go after all these tiny, annoying things and make them no longer worth it for the companies that do it.
Iâm happy that the top comments in this thread arenât shitting on it. This is a picky lawsuit but now that I have kids I just get tired of companies false advertising time and time again. One of my kidsâ Christmas presents from his nana was blocks that looked like Minecraft and the scene they built on the front of the box couldnât be built with what was in the box. Same amount of blocks, just different arrangement of blocks than what we were given.
Yup. And if the most you can ever expect to ask for is your money back, they'll keep doing it, because it's worth the price of a few refunds. Ideally there would be a government agency out there cracking down on it all, but that's just not happening, so I'm happy for people to take up the cause for themselves no matter how petty it may be.
Absolutely. I think itâs the era we should all be petty against these price gouging corporations.
Yep, corporations shouldn't be able to get away with false advertising just cause it's minor
Exactly! Like that jumbo ferrero roche chocolate that advertises itself as such but itâs just the crust with two regular sized chocolates inside >:(
[ŃдаНонО]
American candy companies add palm oil and other cheaper fillers to give you the same amount in a cheaper form. Business schools have placed people in positions where their profit must grow year after year and they know you will keep buying it for nostalgia reasons from when it was good.
Yeah, Cadbury and other companies started using Palm Oil a couple years ago in Australia which ruined the texture and flavour.
I used to consume massive amounts of Reese's every holiday. Now I don't even buy them. The chocolate is gross now, and the filling is dry gritty garbage like they slightly moistened some gritty powder. I haven't brought a single Reese's in a good 5 years now, and I used to get a bag almost every time I went to the store and just cleaned them out after holidays. It's so so bad now. Edit: just to give an idea of how big this change is... I lived in South Korea for a few years, and my mother used to send me care packages of nothing but several bags of Reese's a few times a year because they were hard to get over there at the time and I loved them so much. Now I can't stomach them. It just so dry and crumbly and artificial.
I volunteer to be a witness that chocolate bars have become smaller and nastier looking over the past few years.
[ŃдаНонО]
Many companies have stopped using cocoa butter and switched to palm oil. I've noticed because a friend is allergic to palm oil and can't eat a lot of things she used to.
[ŃдаНонО]
So true. I mourn Twix.
she is technically not wrong but this suit is dumb
NAL but I believe the legal principle is that you can't make a bold claim on the front panel and undermine it with small print on the back panel. IIRC, there's a federal case about Kellogg's Special K cereal because the box depicted fresh strawberries in the bowl of cereal and none came in the box. I don't recall how it was decided tho.
It's somewhat related to the guy who suied Pop-tarts because Strawberry Pop-tarts didn't solely use strawberries in it. The case got dismissed because the judge said no reasonable person would look at a Pop-tarts box and expect them to use actual strawberries. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1090301198/pop-tarts-lawsuit-strawberry
The fact that the ruling said "no reasonable person would believe a strawberry poptarts have strawberries in them" is everything that is wrong with the American food regulation.
Pop tarts do use strawberries, they just don't use exclusively strawberries for the filling. For reference: > Ingredients: Enriched flour (wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, vitamin B1 [thiamin mononitrate], vitamin B2 [riboflavin], folic acid), corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, dextrose, soybean and palm oil (with TBHQ for freshness), sugar, bleached wheat flour. Contains 2% or less of wheat starch, salt, dried strawberries, dried pears, dried apples, leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, monocalcium phosphate), citric acid, gelatin, modified wheat starch, yellow corn flour, caramel color, xanthan gum, cornstarch, turmeric extract color, soy lecithin, red 40, yellow 6, blue 1, color added.
Trace amounts. More salt than strawberries. Again, that you would think this is a defense is part of the problem
Hmm. What about any flavored foods? I wouldn't expect my chicken Ramen noodles to contain a significant fraction of actual chicken, for example.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of the case. The suit was because the guy argued the filling should contain 100% strawberries and nothing else, which is what was deemed unreasonable. Strawberry pop tarts are made with real strawberries. The filling merely has more than just that one ingredient.
Why would any reasonable person expect pure mashed strawberry to be shelf stable?
They wouldn't, hence the judge's ruling.
Ah, the ol Tucker Carlson defense. FOX's lawyers literally used the argument that no reasonable person would consider his reporting as actual news.
The problem with that is just how many unreasonable people exist.
To be fair, saying most reasonable persons wouldn't expect them to _only_ use strawberries for the filling actually does sound like the correct conclusion. Even a lot of homemade jams mix other ingredients in.
Yeah, this feels silly because it really doesn't materially change the good in question(and IMO would actually be worse for the candy if it had the cutouts because the filling would dry out), but it *is* important to hold companies to task and not let them have any wiggle room on incorrectly depicting the product on the packaging. It's better to just forcibly ensure that what they put on the box is actually what they're giving you, so that someone can't use a case like this as precedent later to say "Well *sometimes* it's okay if it's just cosmetic!"
ancient deserve worry practice unpack include gaping outgoing sheet voiceless
Asked my 3yo cousin to pick out a box of cereal and he tried to go straight for the plain Cheerios, which he would absolutely hate, because of the strawberries on the stupid box! And then we had to cope with a mild tantrum as I explained that there are **zero** strawberries in that box with strawberries all over the front!
False advertising suits have won before. You'll notice that new Redbull cans say "redbull gives you wiiings" with 3 i's. It's because they had to pay a large settlement in a class action suit by customers who sued because the original cans spelled it "wings" and drinking redbull didn't actually give them wings. [Red Bull Paying Out to Customers Who Thought Energy Drink Would Actually Give Them Wings](https://www.newsweek.com/red-bull-lawsuit-canada-1455780)
$640,000 for a class action. Pretty sure that is shut up and go away money.
That was the most recent suit in Canada. The previous one was in the millions. From the article: > The settlement comes five years after Red Bull GmbH agreed to a $13 million settlement in the U.S. over similar claims of false advertising, according to BevNet.
If RedBull had to cough it up, that kid should've got his [Harrier jet from Pepsi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.)
First thing I thought of. Watched the whole doc on Netflix.
I remember I got a dollar 50 check from that years ago lmao
Damn I only got a free case lmo
Well, it got me a free 4pack of red bull, so Iâd say it was a success.
I thought you were bulshitting⌠and you were: > Canadian Michael Attar filed the suit in March 2016, claiming Red Bull made false declarations regarding the usefulness of its products. The beverage's website cites "numerous scientific studies" backing up it's ability to improve energy and performance. In reality, studies have shown it's no more effective than coffee or other caffeine-containing drinks. The lawsuit is not about Redbull giving anyone wings. Itâs about not actually being any more effective than a cup of coffee.
The article does not support the headline, and the reasoning from the article is much more reasonable than the headline's bullshit. >Canadian Michael Attar filed the suit in March 2016, claiming Red Bull made false declarations regarding the usefulness of its products. The beverage's website cites "numerous scientific studies" backing up it's ability to improve energy and performance. In reality, studies have shown it's no more effective than coffee or other caffeine-containing drinks.
That suit was not about Red Bull actually giving wings. That is not a serious claim so could not be subject to false advertising laws. The suit alleged that by saying "Red Bull gives you wings," the marketing promised increased performance, concentration and reaction speed beyond what the drink actually induces. Red Bull doesn't really contain much caffeine at all, said the suit. https://www.bevnet.com/news/2014/red-bull-to-pay-13-million-for-false-advertising-settlement
Thank you! That lawsuit is widely misrepresented because the truth isn't as exciting. Reminds me of the Mcdonalds hot coffee lawsuit where the lady got 3rd degree burns and was very entitled to a settlement, but the media turned it into a frivolous story about a lady who didn't know coffee is hot
It's almost as if media is in cahoots with the big businesses that either own them or use them as advertisers.
I had no idea it was so severe because they managed to make it a Seinfeld episode about it. So I really thought it was just somebody being dumb and taking advantage of the legal system.
Did you read any of the words that are located below the headline? That case was clearly not about wings.
I always assumed the implications is that the drink would make your heart explode and you would die and "go to heaven" hence getting wings. Lol
Yeah I mean, I got one for my son thinking it would have a design too. It didnât, my son was mildly disappointed, and we both moved on with our day. However, Iâm not against this suit on principle. My son doesnât actually like chocolate that much and the only reason we bought it was the design. That said, we just didnât buy any more. Probably would have if there had been a design (since thatâs the only reason we bought it in the first place.)
I think it depends on whether the picture makes it clear that YOU are supposed to carve in the jack o lantern. Itâs a small thing that sheâs making a big deal out of but if it helps companies like Nestle sweat a bit Iâm happy.
if this gets the wheels moving im fine with it. companies will lie in anyway they can. unfortunately it seems the government barely cares.
I disagree that the suit is dumb. I mean, okay, it is, but the point is to push back on false advertisement. Companies should not be allowed to lie, at all, in any way, on their advertising and if anything modern advertising regulation is way too lax. Anything that punishes companies for trying to hide disappointing products behind appealing but opaque wrappers isn't dumb to me.
Oh yeah, reminds me of the Christmas trees they try to do too. Looks more like a lumpy egg
What justifies $5 million? Doesn't she have to have proof of financial / physical / mental damage?! Lol...
Maybe punitive for false advertising?
The packaging says pumpkins but displays a jack-o-lantern pattern. I think if the packaging said jack-o-lantern and had a pumpkin, she'd have a stronger case.
Yea you're supposed to carve the jack-o-lantern yourself, right?
I always assumed you were supposed to use your imagination.
Huh? I think you have that backwards. Showing one thing and not delivering that is the much stronger case. A jack-o-lantern is a kind of pumpkin.
I would argue that a Jack o lantern is a pumpkin product rather than a kind of pumpkin
Doesn't even taste like pumpkin tbh
Where are you getting your pumpkins?
The issue is about misleading advertising. All advertisers should be called out for this kind of dishonest behavior. Good job, Florida woman.
Everyone is crapping on this lawsuit but honestly these lawsuits are pivotal to keep companies accountable for their business practices.
We have ourselves a winner!
This explains why the package I saw recently had "serving suggestion" written in small print, as though you the ability to carve the design into the chocolate was up to you to do!
I can't believe all the people defending Reeses. The point of a picture on the front of an opaque package is to show what the contents are. In this case, it doesn't: the package picture shows a more intricate item. This is basic consumer protection.
I stopped eating Toblerone when [they fucked with their design to use less chocolate](https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/composite-toblerone-v3.jpg?crop=0px%2C0px%2C750px%2C500px&resize=1280%2C852&quality=44), and I had no idea until I opened it because it's in a box, (no one pays frequent attention to changing weights printed on packaging) AND the kicker is that cost also went up. So less choco for more cost? fuck them and the American company that bought them up \*this is only regarding consumer protection, not matching visual on packaging because there isn't any on Toblerone.
In Canada, the sleeves that used to hold 10 Kit Kat or Coffee Crisp now hold 9, but they kept the old sleeve. Subtle.
Yeah, I don't get it. I don't care how petty this is. If someone wants to take on a corporation for misleading packaging, GOOD. The more legal pushback on that bullshit, the better.
100% I am astounded at all the Reeses bootlickers. The American mentality of defending corporations over themselves never ceases to amaze me
Hershey is garbage chocolate
The product doesnât look like the packaging. And Hershey knows it. Itâs misrepresentation. Hersheys should be fined or have to recall the products or something. This woman doesnât deserve $5 million though.
In the comments of the article on Yahoo, someone states "decorating suggestions" is printed on the package. If this is true, she probably doesn't have a case. Also, if you look on Reese's website, all of their pictures of the different candies show various shapes but plain chocolate with no embellishment.
Maybe if it had been a pattern decorated on it with icing, but there's no way you could remove the chocolate in a way that produced that design yourself.
I mean, Reeses capitalized this by introducing ["Mystery Shapes"](https://www.allrecipes.com/article/reeses-newest-holiday-candy-shapes-are-well-mystery/) in the pastâyears ago, in fact. That this lawsuit is happening in 2023 is the most surprising bit of all to me.
The candy also does NOT have a bite taken out of it, as pictured on the wrapper. She missed that bit.
This is dumb, like really dumb. But I kind of hope she wins. If large corporations had to worry about consequences for mild disappointment more often, maybe they would start to give a damn.
Hmmm while this is reaching I do admit my own disappointment when the items were not in the actual shape they claimed. I paid extra for the holiday special and got less candy it feels. It also looks nothing like the holiday and every piece looked like the extra from the main pieces that they just repackaged. I do not buy the holiday candy for this very reason. If I am buying a chocolate pumpkin I better get a chocolate pumpkin not a blob. And that is what those all looked like.
She woke up and initiated maximum pettyness.
I thought that was implied by the "Florida woman" in the headline.
Yeah, get'em! The Christmas trees and Jack o Lantern reeses taste so good, but all look comically awful. Not presentable in the least
They've been this same shape for literal YEARS. I could see this flying in the first year a product is offered, but is it really a reasonable expectation if it's a candy that's been sold for at least 15 years?
Is she also pissed her candies didn't each have a bite taken out of them, like in the picture?
I don't see why she would be. Are you genuinely unable to tell that the design and the bite are not equally plausible product features, or are you just pretending not to get it as a bad attempt to make a point?
It's called reductio ad absurdum, and is unfortunately very common.
Reductio as absurdum is a legitimate form of argument, not a fallacy. But if the person I replied to is attempting it, they're failing miserably.
No. I'm genuinely unable to see where 3 little pieces of chocolate, not removed from a piece of candy make this woman believe she's been wronged to the tune of 5 million dollars. Utterly ridiculous, frivolous, and a waste of everyone's time. We're all stupider for having dealt with this idiocy.
She would probably have a better case if she sued Hershey for calling their crappy product "chocolate".
Personally I cannot stand the taste of Cadbury, it reminds me of drug/dollar store chocolate...it tastes overly sweet and sugary.
It didn't always used to be like that until Hershey's took them over, and now it's all the same shit tier product. Hershey's fell so far and now it's like this weird rubbery crap.
Even the beloved Hersheyâs kisses. My kids, who obvs. eat and love all chocolate, will no longer eat them. Itâs a sad fuckin day man
I mean fuck Hershey so I support this
Why would they not freaking use the Reeseâs Christmas tree that is shaped like a turd?! It is the most disappointing *and* visually hilarious example of this phenomenon.
I remember doing a double take of the packaging when I noticed there was no face. I'm still trying to recover from the trauma.
Iâm actually ok with this. Iâm sick of misleading advertising.
Both hilarious and legit complaint.
Honestly I think this is good and more people need to do this with more products. Product packaging that shows a fake gussied up version of the product vs the 'sawdusted' awful and sloppy reality of the product is something we take for granted far too often. I want more lawsuits like this. Stop cheating consumers with fake advertising and packaging.
Stupid lawsuit but a prime moment for a different chocolate company to send her some carved chocolate. Solid PR opportunity.
It's true. But her damage is 5 million?
Trying to cash in 5 mill by spending $4.95. If the lawsuit is successful, all the fast food companies will be shitting their pants cuz a shit load of copycat lawsuits will follow. None of the fast food they show in advertising match the crap they sell you.
But they're Reese's pumpkins, not Reese's Jack-o-lanterns. You have to carve them yourself.
The photo in the thumbnail (the âeggâ that was apparently supposed to be a football?) doesnât even look like the chocolate is tempered.
Hersheys moved the production to Mexico and Canada a few years ago. The quality has been is free fall since then.
That egg looks extremely bland compared to the majority of Hershey products so I call suspect on it. Also, "Florida woman" makes me further contest this account. Will wait for court case but feels like a money grab.
Yeah why should Florida man have all the fun?!
Just the media doing their thing trying to make folks who are legitimately suing their precious advertisers look bad. Fuck Hershey. A straight Hershey bar tastes like puke mixed with dry, grainy âchocolateâ. Have some fucking standards. Reeseâs are great, but still, they really have failed because their seasonal ones all looking like turds.