Own a restaurant? You'll need insurance.

Bigger Does Not Mean Better

We are all aware that the food served at McDonald's is not necessarily the best for us and our children. While most of us tend to avoid an excess of junk food, there are those who take a more "militant" approach to informing the public of the potential health risks involved; particularly for children. One such example can be seen in the case of two activists who took it upon themselves to picket outside a McDonald's establishment in the United Kingdom and hand out flyers that warned the public of the dangers that the food posed to young children.

Unsurprisingly, the conglomerate did not take too kindly to such negative publicity. Due to the fact that similar lawsuits had been settled in their favour in the past, the company went out of their way to file a libel suit against the two; claiming that the information that they were handing out was not true. Indeed, this seemed like a case of David versus Goliath. What followed was a story that could not have been written better by Hollywood filmmakers.

The two protestors actually represented themselves...and won! The defendants called as many as one hundred and eighty different witnesses to verify their claims and at the end, the judge decided in favour of them; stating that more than half of what they had stated was true. While the two were still guilty of libel for the remainder of the statements that they had previously made, the damage had very much already been done.

Not only had McDonald's spent untold millions on solicitors, but their decision to take the case to the public resulted in an incredibly embarrassing end result to their failed efforts. When the smoke had cleared, the case was all but lost for the massive, multinational conglomerate. They simply "folded" and stated that they would not seek compensation for the "libel" case that they had begun. What their insurers had to say is not recorded.

Copyright Carole Fletcher 2014