...and from the 'No shit' files...
Lowering the Bar: Reasonable Consumer Would Know "Crunchberries" Are Not Real, Judge Rules
Yes. Yes, someone actually sued because Crunchberries are:
"in fact simply brightly-colored cereal balls, and that although the product did contain some strawberry fruit concentrate, it was not otherwise redeemed by fruit. She sued, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated consumers, some of whom may believe that there are fields somewhere in our land thronged by crunchberry bushes.
I'm going to assume that this chick's actual thought process was: "If I say I was fooled by advertising, I can get lots of free money!" This is reinforced by the judge pointing out that:
"the plaintiff acknowledged in her opposition to the motion to dismiss that "[c]lose inspection [of the box] reveals that Crunchberries . . . are not really berries. Plaintiff did not explain why she could not reasonably have figured this out at any point during the four years she alleged she bought Cap'n Crunch with Crunchberries in reliance on defendant's fraud." (Emphasis mine.)
Fortunately, not only was the case dismissed, she will not have the chance to amend the complaint. Again, I quote from the judge's ruling:
"In this case, . . . it is simply impossible for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint stating a claim based upon these facts. The survival of the instant claim would require this Court to ignore all concepts of personal responsibility and common sense. The Court has no intention of allowing that to happen." (Emphasis mine)
Thank God.
Yes. Yes, someone actually sued because Crunchberries are:
"in fact simply brightly-colored cereal balls, and that although the product did contain some strawberry fruit concentrate, it was not otherwise redeemed by fruit. She sued, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated consumers, some of whom may believe that there are fields somewhere in our land thronged by crunchberry bushes.
I'm going to assume that this chick's actual thought process was: "If I say I was fooled by advertising, I can get lots of free money!" This is reinforced by the judge pointing out that:
"the plaintiff acknowledged in her opposition to the motion to dismiss that "[c]lose inspection [of the box] reveals that Crunchberries . . . are not really berries. Plaintiff did not explain why she could not reasonably have figured this out at any point during the four years she alleged she bought Cap'n Crunch with Crunchberries in reliance on defendant's fraud." (Emphasis mine.)
Fortunately, not only was the case dismissed, she will not have the chance to amend the complaint. Again, I quote from the judge's ruling:
"In this case, . . . it is simply impossible for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint stating a claim based upon these facts. The survival of the instant claim would require this Court to ignore all concepts of personal responsibility and common sense. The Court has no intention of allowing that to happen." (Emphasis mine)
Thank God.