Kellogg's Pays Up for False Claims on Rice Krispie

ghdhair100

Kellogg's Pays Up for False Claims on Rice Krispies - Slashfood
Photo: Ben+Sam, FlickrRemember those Rice Krispies cereal boxes from 2009 that claimed the "Snap, Crackle, Pop" breakfast would "support your child's immunity?" This was right around the time parents were vaccine-crazy over the bird flu? As you might have guessed, that claim wasn't true. Neither was the company's claim that their Frosted Mini Wheats were "clinically shown to improve children's attentiveness by nearly 20%." And for that, Kellogg's is paying.Last week,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) -- which regulates U.S. advertising -- announced a class-action settlement brought to the century-old, $13 billion company in the U.S. District Court of California, thanks to the laws of advertising that ban misleading and inaccurate marketing claims (or what we like to call the "That just ain't right!" ruling).For the Mini-Wheats case, settled in November of last year, Kellogg's agreed to $10.5 million. According to Food Business News, "class members received $2.75 million and $5.5 million was given to charities." For the Krispies Immunity boxes, Kellogg's will pay you,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], the customer, between $5 and $15 for any you bought while they were on the shelf from June 1,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], 2009 to March 1, 2010, which accounts for $2.5 million. The company is also charged to destroy these boxes and donate $2.5 million worth of products and brand cereals to charity.Share TweetWe hear ya, Kellogg's; sometimes fiction reads better than fact, but the front of the box has to agree with the nutrition facts on the back.Become a fan of Slashfood on Facebook and follow us Twitter.#postcontentcontainer #fivemin-widget-blogsmith-0{width:590px;height:453px;background:black url(http://pthumbnails.5min.com/4682349/234117440_3_590_453.jpg) no-repeat center center;}
The Court of Appeal pointed out that R and F's submission in the county court was of overt, conscious racism, and it was not prepared to find that there had been unconscious discrimination.The decisionThe Court of Appeal said that, unlike the ordinary civil claim where the judge decides, on the claimant's evidence only, whether the claimant has made out a case, in this case the judge had had the benefit of the whole of the evidence. Despite the school's failure to comply with the statutory requirements, the judge had been entitled to find on the basis of all the evidence that R and F had not proved racial discrimination.

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]