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
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.