The lawsuit’s been widely covered so usually I wouldn’t bother linking, but there’s been mockery over it, and the mockery is wrong.

Just look at the picture.

Almost anything you buy, the picture on the package is prettier than what’s inside, but the imagery on these candy wrappers is PhotoShop BS, a flat-out lie.

I stand with Cynthia Kelly, and hope Hershey pays her the $5M she’s asking.

Original link

Dec 29 (Reuters) - Hershey has been sued by a Florida woman who said its holiday-themed Reese’s peanut butter candies lack the artistic details shown on the packaging that make them worth buying.

In a proposed federal class action filed on Thursday and seeking at least $5 million, Cynthia Kelly accused Hershey of deceiving reasonable consumers by falsely promising that its candies would contain “explicit carved out artistic designs.”

She said she would not have paid $4.49 in October at an Aldi for a bag of Reese’s Peanut Butter Pumpkins, had she known that the candies not only lacked the “cute looking” carved eyes and mouth shown on the packaging, but any carvings at all.

The complaint said Hershey’s labels “are materially misleading and numerous consumers have been tricked and misled by the pictures on the products’ packaging.”

It cited several videos on Google’s YouTube, and included illustrations such as a Reese’s Peanut Butter footBall shaped like a football, but missing the laces shown on the packaging.

Hershey did not immediately respond on Friday to requests for comment. Kelly’s lawyer did not immediately respond to a similar request.

The plaintiff filed her lawsuit in the federal court in Tampa, Florida.

She is seeking damages for Florida purchasers of Reese’s Peanut Butter Pumpkins, White Pumpkins, Pieces Pumpkins, Peanut Butter Ghost, White Ghost, Peanut Butter Bats, Peanut Butter footBalls and Peanut Butter Shapes Assortment Snowmen Stockings Bells for violations of that state’s consumer protection laws.

Kelly’s lawyer has also filed lawsuits accusing Burger King and Taco Bell of selling food that when served looks less enticing than advertised.

The case is Kelly v Hershey Co, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, No. 23-02977.

  • player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Isn’t it more frivolous for the company to intentionally falsify the images on the packaging to increase sales? They deserve to be held to the same standards as all other companies or else the false advertising will only worsen.

    • Ech@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      6 months ago

      Wth are you talking about? No other person or company is held to that “standard”. This is just circle jerking over “sticking it” to a corporation over the tiniest possible thing they could be punished for. It’s absurd.

      • player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        The FTC has extensive federal labeling laws for products sold in the US. Products cannot be misrepresented to consumers. It is not up to me to decide where to draw the line of what is going too far, but I welcome the opportunity for a judge to decide if Reeces overstepped that line or not.

        It is important to challenge these cases or else corporations will lie on packaging more and more. This is not a hypothetical, this is a real problem that the FTC has faught to gain control over for decades to get to the point where we are now where consumers more or less trust packaging to be a fair representation of the product they are paying for.

    • Sorgan71@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      6 months ago

      i’m fine living in a world where candy does not have faces on it when the packaging says it does. I dont really care.

      • player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Neither do it, it’s more about enforcing federal label laws and truth in advertising. Why let corporations lie when they could simply be truthful? If we allow them to lie a little this year, they will lie more next year. That’s how product packaging used to be until these things were actually enforced.

        I’m not even saying that Reeces deserves to lose this case, but I think it is fair for a judge to rule on it because it does seem deceptive.

        • Sorgan71@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          6 months ago

          well if they lie in a manner thats substantial then we can sue them. But this is such a small issue its akin to suing a restraunt because their was hair in your food. Like i get its not ideal buts thats life. Small things should stay small.