In 1986 members of the environmental activist group, London Greenpeace (unrelated to Greenpeace International), published a leaflet entitled “What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they don’t want you to know”. The publication made critical allegations of global fast-food chain McDonald’s. Distributed to the public by hand and online, the leaflet was received by a global audience.The publication made the following allegations, stating that McDonald’s:
• was complicit in Third World starvation;
• bought from greedy rulers and elites and practices economic imperialism;
• wasted vast quantities of grain and water;
• destroyed rainforests with poisons and colonial invasions;
• sold unhealthy, addictive fast food;
• altered its food with artificial chemistry;
• exploited children with its advertising;
• was responsible for torture and murder of animals;
• poisoned customers with contaminated meat;
• exploited its workers and banned unions;
• hid its malfeasance (Wolfson, 1999, p. 21).

McDonald’s deemed the publication defamatory of their reputation. Defamation is the publication of an untrue statement which reflects a person’s reputation and tends to lower him in the opinion of right-thinking members of society generally (Finch, 2007, p. 168). Initially, the multinational corporation threatened various broadcasters and five active members of London Greenpeace withlegal action if they did not withdraw the allegations. Under s.2 of The Defamation Act 1996 the publisher of a defamatory statement can make amends thus avoid liability if they provide a suitable correction or apology. Determined to not “give into intimidation and bullying” all but two London Greenpeace members apologised. This left McDonald’s to file an English lawsuit for libel against the remaining individuals, Helen Steel and David Morris. None of the allegations made were particularly novel; many activists around the world had previously campaigned for the same specific issues. However it was London Greenpeace who drew all of the criticisms together and printed them in a permanent form, a condition of libel. Had the manner in which the statements were published differed, for example, been spoken, then the case would have instead been slanderous.

The case lasted 313 days in court, making it the longest case in English history to date. Libel is actionable per se, which means that it is the conduct which is wrong, irrespective of whether or not any harm is caused to the claimant as a result. McDonald’s purposes for starting the proceedings were to secure damages and an injunction. However McDonald’s did not pursue the damages and in hindsight they claim that they were only interested in establishing the truth. As defamation falls under tort law, a branch of common law, there was no legal aid available to Steel and Morris. McDonald’s were at an unfair advantage, being able to afford the highest quality lawyers, whereas the defendants were self-represented. Steel and Morris raised and spent approximately only £30,000 throughout the 7 years of the case. McDonald’s expenditure was suspected to be somewhat in the region of £5-15 million. In June 1997, Mr Justice Bell read his judgement summary, stating Steel and Morris had not proved the allegations against McDonald's on rainforest destruction, packaging, food poisoning, starvation in the Third World, heart disease & cancer and bad working conditions (McSpotlight, 1997). However they did successfully show that McDonald’s was responsible for exploit children with their advertising, falsely advertising their food as nutritious, risking the health of their long-term regular customers, were "culpably responsible" for cruelty to animals reared for their products, were "strongly antipathetic" to unions and pay their workers low wages (Nicholson, 2000, p. 1).

Steel and Morris were protected by Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the right to freedom of expression, but could not use it as a defence as there were limitations which came with the act. One of which being the protection of the reputation and rights of others. Constitutional law governs the relationship between the state and its citizens. As well as governing issues such as freedom of speech, constitutional law also governs issues regarding the right to a fair trial. Five years after the verdict of the case, in May 2004, Helen and David appeared in court again, for their appeal against the fact that they had an unfair case. The European Court of Human Rights accepted their claim and agreed that the McLibel trial breached Article 6, their right to a fair trial, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Helen Steel (2005) said, “[The European Court of Justice] finally recognized what we have been saying for the last 15 years, which is that UK libel laws are oppressive and unfair and act as a barrier to freedom speech for ordinary people”. The court awarded judgement of £57,000 against UK government.

At the time of the McLibel case The Defamation Act 1996 (DA 1996) was still in place. The Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013) has since been introduced, providing greater protection for individuals, such as journalists, scientists or academics, who by DA 1996 would have faced unfair legal threats for fairly criticizing a company, person or product. The new measures make it harder for wealthy corporations, such as McDonald’s, to threaten or intimidate individuals with unfair law suits. “These laws coming into force represent the end of a long and hard-fought battle to ensure a fair balance is struck between the right to freedom of expression and people’s ability to protect their reputation (Vara, 2013).” The repeal of the old law seeks to ensure effective protection for freedom of expression and encourages open and honest public debate, without compromising the protection of the reputation of those who may have been unjustly attacked. The Defamation Act 2013 came into action 1st January 2014.

Some of the allegations made against McDonald’s; exploiting children with its advertising and promoting the food as nutritious, accused the company of false advertising. McDonald’s had always been adept at attracting children using a formidable combination of child-friendly advertising showcasing the Ronald McDonald character as well as child-focused products like the Happy Meal, which came with child-sized portions and a free toy for the kids plus a lower price incentive for parents. Observing McDonald’s television commercials over the past two decades, it is evident that the company has completely transformed their marketing approach. Current advertisements appeal to broader audiences. The Sales of Goods Act 1979 summarises that all goods must be as described, of a satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. Under s.13 of The Sales of Goods Act, sale by description, McDonald’s testified that their food was nutritious, but the judge ruled this “misleading”, for the reason that if eaten regularly, McDonald’s is unhealthy to the consumers in the long term. McDonald’s is not the only multinational fast-food corporation to have faced scrutiny. “Fast-food litigation raises the question of where accountability for the economic and public health consequences of obesity properly rests (Mello and Rimm et al., 2003, pp. 207-216)”.

Helen and David managed to prove the de-humanization of the employees of McDonald’s. The company were "strongly antipathetic" to unions and paid their workers low wages. London Greenpeace felt the need to scrutinise the working environment so that the conditions did not become acceptable elsewhere (McLibel, 2005). The verdict was that McDonald’s paid employees low wages, thus supressing wages across the industry and was anti-unionisation.

As London Greenpeace was an unincorporated association, McDonald’s knew they were unable to sue the campaign directly when theleaflets began to circulate. Consequently they breached the right of privacy in order to find out the names and details of some of the people behind the “What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they don’t want you to know”campaign. In 1990 McDonald’s infiltrated London Greenpeace meetings with spies. The spies also conducted petty crimes such as theft and breaking and entering. The Metropolitan police were responsible for giving out Helen and David’s confidential information. At the time of the case The Data Protection Act 1984 still stood, this was repealed in 1998 and again in 2003. The Data Protection Act 1998 is the main legislation to govern the protection of personal date in the United Kingdom. The act itself does not mention privacy and was enacted to bring UK law into line with The EU Data Protection Derivative 1995. The act additionally requires companies and individuals to keep personal information to themselves.

Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce (Wipo.int, 2014). Intellectual property is currently protected by the following laws:
• Patents Act 1977
• Trade Marks Act 1994
• Registered Designs Act 1949
• Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988
They provide exclusive rights for the creator over the use of his/her creation for a certain period of time. The McDonald’s golden arches logo is now one of the most familiar symbols in the world, recognised by even more people than the Christian cross (Business Insider, 2010). Under s.1 of The Trademark Act 1994; a “trade mark” is a sign capable of being represented graphically which is capable of distinguishing enterprises; it may consist of words, designs, letters, numerals, and the shape of goods or their package, McDonald’s have faced cases against various companies due to trademark issues, as both the plaintiff and the defendant. Trademarks protect the names and identifying marks of products and companies. The purpose of trademarks is to aid the consumer in distinguishing competitors from one another. They are automatically assumed once a business begins using a certain mark to identify its company, and may use the ™ symbol without filing their logo or name with the government. However, registering with the Intellectual Property Office will offer greater protection for both the consumer and the business owner. The company’s identity and the business owner’s investment in reputation will be protected (Thomasfirm.com, 2014). In order to obtain permission to use the McDonald’s logo you must apply online, their website states, “We’ve spent over fifty years developing the McDonald’s trademarks and logos, and they are a part of the brand quality and consistency that our customers have come to know and trust (Mcdonalds.com, 2014)”.

A trade secret is a formula or process held by a company, giving them an economic advantage over their competitors in the same industry. Disclosing the information could cause harm to the company. An example of a food retailer’s trade secret could be the ingredients and techniques involved in their recipes. Employers can restrict the people involved in the manufacture of the produce revealing the trade secret by making them sign a non-disclosure, whereby they swear to disclose any information.

McDonald’s have voiced that they do not object to fair criticism, but the allegations made about the corporation were defamatory. Steel and Morris failed to prove all the points and the judge ruled they that had therefore libelled McDonald’s and must pay £60,000 damages, to which they refused. McDonald’s did not pursue the damages, albeit this was why they initiated the claim. The case had already gained exponential press coverage and media attention, being compared to the story of David and Goliath, causing much controversy. Many legal issues arose, highlighting the importance for both individuals and businesses to be able to defend themselves legally. Bibliography

• Bainbridge, D. I. 2002. Intellectual property. 8th ed. Harlow, England: Longman.
• BBC News. 2013. Hard sell. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23189582 [Accessed: 9 Jan 2014].
• Business Insider. 2010. 15 Facts About McDonald's That Will Blow Your Mind. [online] Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/amazing-facts-mcdonalds-2010-12?op=1 [Accessed: 10 Jan 2014].
• Cyber.law.harvard.edu. 2014. Qualitex Co.. [online] Available at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tmcases/qualite.htm [Accessed: 11 Jan 2014].
• Finch, E. 2007. Tort law. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
• Gov.uk. 2013. Joining a trade union - GOV.UK. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/join-trade-union [Accessed: 7 Jan 2014].
• Green, D. 2010. Why should companies be allowed to sue for libel?. [online] 10 Aug. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/aug/12/libel-corporate-entities-right-to-sue [Accessed: 11 Jan 2014].
• Libel: new Defamation Act will reverse 'chilling effect', ministers claim. 2013. [online] 31 Dec. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/31/trivial-libel-claims-targeted-new-law [Accessed: 11 Jan 2014].
• Liberty-human-rights.org.uk. n.d. Article 10 Freedom of expression | What the rights mean | Liberty - protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights. [online] Available at: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-rights/the-human-rights-act/what-the-rights-mean/article-10-freedom-of-expression.php [Accessed: 12 Jan 2014].
• Marketing McDonald's. 2008. [e-book] UK: Available through: McDonalds http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/content/dam/McDonaldsUK/People/Schools-and-students/mcd_marketing.pdf [Accessed: 11 Jan 2014].
• McDonalds. n.d. McDonald's 1980's Television Commercail. [video online] Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdwyZPNoFT8 [Accessed: 7 Jan 2014].
• McDonalds. 2013. McDonald's Television Commercial. [video online] Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmJxaTBn630 [Accessed: 7 Jan 2014].
• Mcdonalds.com. 2014. Trademark Permission :: McDonalds.com. [online] Available at: http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/contact_us/trademark_permission.html [Accessed: 18 Jan 2014].
• McLibel. 2005. [DVD] UK: Spanner Films.
• McLibel: Longest case in English history. 2005. [online] 15 Feb. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4266741.stm [Accessed: 3 Jan 2014].
• Mcspotlight.org. 1986. Solidarity Leaflet 1 - Autumn 1999. [online] Available at: http://www.mcspotlight.org/campaigns/current/solidat96.html [Accessed: 18 Dec 2013].
• Mello, M., Rimm, E. and Studdert, D. 2003. The McLawsuit: The Fast-Food Industry And Legal Accountability For Obesity. 22 (6), pp. 207-216. Available from: doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.22.6.207.
• Nicholson, M. A. 2000. McLibel: A Case Study in English Defamation Law. Wis. Int'l LJ, 18 p. 1.
• Oliver, M. 2005. McLibel. [online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/feb/15/food.foodanddrink [Accessed: 18 Dec 2013].
• Ponsford, D. 2013. Defamation Bill passed: 'It will change the landscape of free speech in Britain'. [online] 25 Apr. Available at: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/defamation-bill-passed-it-will-change-landscape-free-speech-britain [Accessed: 18 Dec 2013].
• Steel, H. 2005. McLibel: British Activists Sued for Distributing McDonald’s Flyers Win Court Case. Interviewed by Amy Goodman [in person] Britain, 15 Feb 2005.
• Thomasfirm.com. 2014. Trademark Law Basics. [online] Available at: http://www.thomasfirm.com/trademarks.html [Accessed: 10 Jan 2014].
• Vara, S. 2013. Defamation laws take effect - Press releases - GOV.UK. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defamation-laws-take-effect [Accessed: 10 Jan 2014].
• What's Wrong with McDonald's?. 1986. [image online] Available at: http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/pretrial/factsheet_cover.html [Accessed: 3 Jan 2014].
• Wipo.int. 2014. What is Intellectual Property?. [online] Available at: http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ [Accessed: 10 Jan 2014].
• Wolfson, D. J. 1999. McLibel. Animal L., 5 p. 21.