Clarkson-11e: Case Problem with Sample Answer
Chapter 44: Consumer Law
44–7. Case Problem with Sample Answer
One of the products that McDonald’s Corp. sells is the Happy Meal®, which consists of a McDonald’s food entree, a small order of french fries, a small drink, and a toy. In the early 1990s, McDonald’s began to aim its Happy Meal marketing at children aged one to three. In 1995, McDonald’s began making nutritional information for its food products available in documents known as “McDonald’s Nutrition Facts.” Each document lists each food item that the restaurant serves and provides a nutritional breakdown, but the Happy Meal is not included. Marc Cohen filed a suit in an Illinois state court against McDonald’s, alleging, among other things, that the defendant had violated a state law prohibiting consumer fraud and deceptive business practices by failing to adhere to the National Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA). The NLEA sets out different requirements for products specifically intended for children under the age of four—generally, the products cannot declare the percent of daily value of nutritional components. Would this requirement be readily understood by a consumer who is not familiar with nutrition standards? Why or why not? Should a state court impose such regulations? Explain. [Cohen v. McDonald’s Corp., 347 Ill.App.3d 627, 808 N.E.2d 1, 283 Ill.Dec. 451 (1 Dist. 2004)]
Sample Answer:
Parents are often aware that doses of medicine are smaller for young children and that portion sizes of restaurant items, as well as clothing and other things, are differently sized for children. It may be only common sense to conclude that daily nutritional requirements would be different, too, especially for children under four. With that in mind, it could be argued that it would be unethical not to post the requirements differently for children under four. A consumer who is not familiar with nutrition standards, however, would likely not understand the NLEA’s different percentage requirements for products specifically intended for children under the age of four, because if such a consumer is not familiar with the standards, he or she will not understand why they are different in different circumstances. A state court should not impose regulations under the NLEA for establishing nutritional requirements for children under four. A state cannot impose obligations that are different from those mandated by federal law, because non-uniformity among the states would result. In this case, too, the plaintiff was asking a state court to interpret a federal statute, which the court did not have the authority to do.