Ridge Runner Chronicles: Just a Simple Picture of a Mint Leaf
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send your username and password to you.
By Bill Hoagland
Have you ever bought a package of Trident Mint Bliss chewing gum and were misled into thinking the gum actually contained mint leaves as one of the ingredients because the packaging has a picture of a mint leaf on the front? Never mind that the picture of the mint leaf is located just above a declaration on the packaging that the product is artificially flavored. Never mind that the packaging also contains a complete list of the actual ingredients and mint leaves are not mentioned in that list.
Despite these undeniable facts, a group of plaintiffs claim in a class action lawsuit against Trident that they are entitled to money damages because Trident misled consumers into thinking that mint is actually in the product because a mint leaf is pictured on the package. This lawsuit is pending in federal court in northern Illinois; the defendants have moved to have the case dismissed and they have asked the court to impose a monetary penalty against the plaintiffs for having filed a frivolous lawsuit. The trial judge has indicated that it is too early to determine if the case is truly frivolous because he has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, but based on recent court decisions elsewhere, there is a reasonable chance that the claim will be dismissed and that the court just might impose sanctions against plaintiffs for having filed a frivolous suit.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer in the Trident case is Spencer Sheehan, a New York lawyer who over the years has filed more than 400 class actions against various companies because, according to Sheehan, these companies misrepresented facts about their products so as to induce consumers to buy a product that they would not otherwise buy; and just so you know, these are not lawsuits in which someone sustained a physical injury because of a misrepresentation. Sheehan is proud of what he does and claims that even if many of his cases are dismissed, he is acting in the best interests of the American consumer so let’s check out some of his lawsuits that he feels good about having filed.
First, we have a suit against King’s Hawaiian Bread in which it was claimed that there was a misrepresentation because the bread is now made in California, not Hawaii. Next, we have a suit against Reynolds Aluminum because Reynolds represented that the product was American-made when in fact some of the component ingredients in the aluminum foil was actually mined outside the United States. Then we have a suit against Kellogg’s because their product, “Strawberry Pop-Tarts,” contains not only strawberry ingredients, but other fruit-based ingredients as well. As a final example, we have a suit by Sheehan against Dryers regarding their Haagen-Dazs Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bar because the milk chocolate used in the product had a vegetable oil coating; the plaintiffs in that case claim they would not have purchased the product had they known that the milk chocolate was not “pure” milk chocolate. The case against Dryers, by the way, was recently dismissed by a federal district judge in southern Illinois with a ruling that as a matter of law, there was no misrepresentation. And yes, as usual, the packaging contained a statement of the actual ingredients.
Many of the Sheehan class actions get dismissed early on. So if you are wondering why these suits get filled in the first place, the fact is that some companies would rather pay the plaintiffs and their lawyer to go away for an amount less than what it would cost the company to defend the lawsuit. These payments are referred to as “nuisance settlements,” but they sometimes amount to thousands of dollars per case. And if any settlement money is paid, the lawyer gets at least 30% of the total amount received with the actual plaintiffs each often receiving a token settlement—sometimes literally just a couple of bucks.
There are consumer groups who claim these types of class actions are meritorious even if no physical injury is involved because it is the only way to keep product manufacturers from grossly misrepresenting facts about their products. And the lawyers who file these class actions say they are performing a service for the consuming public by making these companies pay attention to what they say on their packages even if these cases get dismissed early on.
Apparently very few courts in dismissing these complaints have taken the extra step of ruling that a particular complaint is frivolous and imposing a penalty against the plaintiffs. In my opinion, that is what needs to happen more often, starting with the Trident chewing gum case. Imposing a penalty in the more ridiculous cases will cut down on the nonsense and it is definitely nonsense.
• Bill Hoagland has practiced law in Alton for more than 50 years, but he has spent more than 70 years hunting, fishing and generally being in the great outdoors. His wife, Annie, shares his love of the outdoor life. Much of their spare time is spent on their farm in Calhoun County. Bill can be reached at billhoagland70@gmail.com.
