We live in a society that will sue for any discrepancies of information that a company or person does not disclose openly. This just happens to be the case in regards to Greg and Mary’s accusations. The parents of this overweight and high cholesterol child may not have necessarily been the sole or total result from eating the burgers from the child’s school, but the school failed to inform the parents of the source of which the burgers were being produced. The school also neglected to provide parents with formal knowledge of the potential risks the burgers from Drive-In Don’s and also provide their nutritional values.
The child of Mary and Greg could have previously been at risk or major health issues, but that would be a hard argument for the school to present considering the county department’s one year study reporting that children from schools which sell Drive-In Don products have the highest cholesterol, are the most obese, and are the least active. Greg and Mary’s argument could be that the school failed to inform them of the origin of the food that was being served to their child as well as failure to provide them with the total number of fat, calories, and cholesterol of these foods that are being served. It can be argued that high levels of sodium, fat, and calories can cause a growing child health problems and cause them to be more sluggish than children who are their exact age but eating healthier food selections.
“Antitrust decisions should be based solely on the criterion of economic efficiency—that is, the maximization of consumer welfare, which may be defined as improving the allocation of scarce resources without in some way decreasing productive efficiencies….you will find that one of these goals is the “promotion of the maximization of consumer welfare using market principles and efficiency criteria” (Kusabek, N.K., Brennan, B.A., Browne, N., 2009); and, therefore, Mary and Greg can allege that their trust in the school to serve their child healthy meals and help them to lead a healthy lifestyle had been broken. “Despite that, studies have found that roughly two-thirds of schools had fast-food chains within easy walking distance.” (Baertlein,L, 2009) The parents can argue that fast food decisions should be the choice of the parents and not to be left up to the judgment of the schools without consent or informing the parents of what their children are eating. They can also argue that “a fast-food restaurant within about 500 feet of a school may lead to at least a 5 percent increase in the obesity rate at that school, according to a recent study conducted by economists at Columbia University and the University California, Berkeley” (Baertlein,L, 2009). So, just imagine the effect it will have when it’s being served daily to children as lunch. The parents actually have a pretty solid and strong case. The defense that the school and the restaurant might have is the argument that their food may not be the healthiest, they offer the same foods that parents or children will buy when they visit the restaurant or fast food restaurants that are similar when school hours are n out of session. They can also argue that they should not be held responsible for false advertisement or not providing nutritional information and ingredients’ considering the school probably does not do so for the other regularly served food items. They can also argue that research was not directly done on their product alone through the county health department and the problem could be various foods or other factors contributing to the children’s high cholesterol, being obese, and being least active. The FTC is primarily used to “bring only civil actions, which are usually argued before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Usually, the Justice Department files civil suits in a federal district court. The remedy requested is ordinarily an injunction to prevent a particular action from occurring, along with a specific order requiring the business to change its conduct or operation. Most of the time, the defending parties, because of the cost of litigation and the attendant bad publicity, choose not to fight the case and instead agree to enter into a consent decree (consent order) with the Justice Department, which binds them to stop the activity complained of…. According to the Clayton Law, any person who shall be injured in his person or in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue [and] . . . shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained and the cost of suit including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” (Kusabek, N.K., Brennan, B.A., Browne, N., 2009). The plaintiffs can look to the FTC for help because their child has suffered damages from a business (the school and Drive-In Don’s) and his health has become jeopardized because of the carelessness and negligence of the companies to provide the necessary information of the ingredients or nutritional value of the product. The FTC would then help the plaintiffs to present an even stronger case and most likely win judgment. Overall, when any organization introduces a new product that could severely affect a child’s health, it is very important to , first, research the product and be aware of the possible after effects, and two, disclose any and all information regarding ingredients and nutritional value to the child’s parents to avoid lawsuits or any discretions.

References

Baertlein, L. May 28, 2009. School Lunch vs. Junk Food. Retrieved November 15, 2011. From Shop Talk. http://blogs.reuters.com/shop-talk/2009/05/28/school-lunch-vs-junk-food/

Kubasek,N. K., Brennan, B.A., Browne, N., 2009. Legal Environment of Business 5th Edition.