Taco Bell sued

[BenBurch]

No, being truthful is the ONLY test.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

17 max.


That's not in question. There is no need for an analogy in this discussion. I've already explained the requirements. The claim must be truthful, and it must not be misleading in a material way. That's the test in a nutshell.

To claim that some other food item when described a certain way is truthful and not misleading does not mean that in this case the claim is also truthful and not misleading (same for the opposite). Each claim is examined on its own merits with the tests I described (based on what the FTC requires).




As I said several times already, being truthful is only one prong of the test. Another prong is whether it's misleading in a material way (two prongs really). Their claim is truthful, but is it misleading. People will disagree, but the problem I've seen in this thread is that people keep focusing on the truth test without adequately addressing the misleading aspect. Truth does not negate misleading.

I would rule that Taco Bell must change its advertising primarily for two reasons. First, if they are allowed to refer to that component as "seasoned ground beef," then it places an unfair burden on any other company wanting to sell a taco that only contains ground beef and seasoning without oats, soy and yeast. As a consumer I wouldn't realize the two were different.

Second, I'm suspicious as to why the yeast is added. If the effect of the yeast is to combine with the starches, water and heat to create air pockets and thus pump up the volume, that's a deceptive trade practice because I'm actually getting ground beef, seasoning, and air pockets I wouldn't normally get.

If you go to AllRecipes.com and do an ingredient search for ground beef and yeast while putting "taco" as the keyword, only three recipes show up. All three are baked items. If you remove yeast, you get 20 recipes, most of which are typical taco filling recipes. I consider that evidence that yeast is not a standard practice in taco filling.

The point I was making is that it's only misleading because it's not the way that you would make tacos. When I go to eat at any restaurant I recognize that the meal will be prepared in a manner, and with different ingredients, than I am likely to do at home. It is not misleading for Taco Bell to present that their tacos are made with seasoned ground beef - because that's exactly what it is: seasoned ground beef. Perhaps seasoned differently than yours, but that doesn't mean it's misleading to call theirs (or anyone else's, for that matter) seasoned ground beef.

As for another restaurant's advertising, it is not at all uncommon to see advertisements that would be similar to: "While our competitors' tacos only have 88% beef in the filling, ours is 99% beef".

 

[Uncayimmy]

No, being truthful is the ONLY test.

You are incorrect.

http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus35-advertising-faqs-guide-small-business
What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?

Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:
Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
Advertisements cannot be unfair.

Additional laws apply to ads for specialized products like consumer leases, credit, 900 telephone numbers, and products sold through mail order or telephone sales. And every state has consumer protection laws that govern ads running in that state.
What makes an advertisement deceptive?

According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:
Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
Is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.

<snip>

How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive?

A typical inquiry follows these steps:

The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures - to determine what it conveys to consumers.

The FTC looks at both "express" and "implied" claims. An express claim is literally made in the ad. For example, "ABC Mouthwash prevents colds" is an express claim that the product will prevent colds. An implied claim is one made indirectly or by inference. "ABC Mouthwash kills the germs that cause colds" contains an implied claim that the product will prevent colds. Although the ad doesn't literally say that the product prevents colds, it would be reasonable for a consumer to conclude from the statement "kills the germs that cause colds" that the product will prevent colds. Under the law, advertisers must have proof to back up express and implied claims that consumers take from an ad.

The FTC looks at what the ad does not say - that is, if the failure to include information leaves consumers with a misimpression about the product. For example, if a company advertised a collection of books, the ad would be deceptive if it did not disclose that consumers actually would receive abridged versions of the books.

The FTC looks at whether the claim would be "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product. Examples of material claims are representations about a product's performance, features, safety, price, or effectiveness.
The FTC looks at whether the advertiser has sufficient evidence to support the claims in the ad. The law requires that advertisers have proof before the ad runs.

If you want the full policy statement on deception, you can look here:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm
In some circumstances, the Commission can presume that consumers are likely to reach false beliefs about the product or service because of an omission. At other times, however, the Commission may require evidence on consumers' expectations.

 

[Babbylonian]

No, being truthful is the ONLY test.

That's certainly my feeling. How could advertising be misleading if it's truthful?

This whole thing smells of people looking for some free money, and for the most part they've failed since Taco Bell didn't bend over and settle.

It seems pretty simple: Their seasoned ground beef is composed primarily of ground beef (and I've identified it as such on those occasions I've partaken), therefore they can't be sued for advertising that their products contain ground beef.

Folks can pick-pick-pick over their recipe all they want (obviously, based on the length of this thread so far), but unless it can be proven Taco Bell's claim that their seasoned ground beef contains 80+% ground beef is false, the advertising is truthful, which can't be anything but a perfect defense to this nonsense.

 

[mortimer]

You are conflating nutrition facts with advertising.

Nonsense. My point is, if they advertise and sell "ground beef", then there would be a problem if what they were selling wasn't really ground beef. The fact is, they sell, for example, a taco. Which has ground beef and many other ingredients.

They are required by law to list their ingredients. That's a relatively strictly regulated process, and it's not relevant to the debate.

Agreed, especially because they *do* list their ingredients, and nobody has claimed that the ingredient list is incorrect in it's details.

Their advertising is what you see in the media. They describe their tacos as "A crunchy, corn taco shell filled with seasoned ground beef, crisp shredded lettuce, and real cheddar cheese." The question is how reasonable people will interpret "seasoned ground beef." Clearly its material to their decision to purchase (otherwise, why list it?).

But they make no claim as to how much ground beef is used, nor is there any requirement to list the percent ground beef in a taco.

Again, if the ingredients of a taco are listed as:

1) Ground beef ingredients: ground beef
2) Seasoning ingredients: the other stuff

Would there be a problem?

As we examine it further, there are two questions. First, is the claim truthful? In my opinion it is. There's plenty of ground beef and seasoning in their taco meat filling for it to be called seasoned ground beef.

Agreed.

Second, does it imply anything? That could be answered by doing a survey asking something like this:

Which one(s) of the following would you expect to constitute seasoned ground beef if mentioned in an ad for a food item in a restaurant?

a) ground beef, chili powder, salt, pepper, cumin
b) ground beef, water, chili powder, salt, pepper, cumin
c) ground beef, water, oats, yeast, chili powder, salt, pepper, cumin

If you don't get a substantial number including (c) then you've got misleading advertising on your hands.

You believe that the ingredients allowed in a restaurant menu item should be standard and based off public surveys?

3B (you can be a terrible communicator, friend) seems to be making the point that if you go to the grocery store to buy seasoned ground beef, they could only call (a) seasoned ground beef by law. The way the law is relevant (it's not applicable) to this discussion is simply that it creates an expectation in the minds of consumers about the meaning of seasoned ground beef when seen in another context. It's a reasonable point to make.

I know that's the point he's trying to make. But you *can't* buy seasoned ground beef from Taco Bell. You buy a menu item like a taco or a burrito. So comparisons to buying ground beef from the grocer are not valid.

I believe there are some trained cooks here. I'm not one, but I cook and bake a lot. While I would add water to ground beef when making taco meat, I would not add any starches. If I did, it would probably be corn starch. What concerns me is that the combination of the oats, yeast, water and heat results in expansion. Personally, I've never added yeast to anything I didn't want to rise at least a wee bit (maybe that's my lack of training). To me that implies that Taco Bell is, in fact, using a "filler" to make it look like you're getting more ground beef than you really are.

There's a case here. I can't say where it will go, but I doubt it will get tossed. I predict a settlement and a modification to their advertising once this dies down.

Taco Bell explicitly states that they don't use any "extenters", so if you believe they actually are, there would probably be grounds for a lawsuit. From their website:

"Our seasoned beef contains no "extenders" to add volume, as some might use.

 

[NewtonTrino]

So does anyone here actually eat taco bell?

Anyway I think the crux of the matter here is the claim that only 36% of the FILLING is made of beef. If Taco bell uses the recipe they have claimed (88% of the recipe is 100% ground beef) then I don't have a problem with the way they are advertising it.

Personally I think it tastes like crap so I always order chicken or steak (not that I eat at taco bell as a regular thing, I don't). I wonder how much tofu is in the steak?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You are incorrect.




If you want the full policy statement on deception, you can look here:

And the FTC has already stated that there is nothing deceptive with Taco Bell's advertising...

You've got a non-starter on your hands here, UY.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

So does anyone here actually eat taco bell?

Anyway I think the crux of the matter here is the claim that only 36% of the FILLING is made of beef. If Taco bell uses the recipe they have claimed (88% of the recipe is 100% ground beef) then I don't have a problem with the way they are advertising it.

Personally I think it tastes like crap so I always order chicken or steak (not that I eat at taco bell as a regular thing, I don't). I wonder how much tofu is in the steak?

I eat Taco Bell about once a week or less. Usually a steak grilled stuft burrito and 3 tacos (sometimes soft, sometimes hard).

 

[Uncayimmy]

That's certainly my feeling. How could advertising be misleading if it's truthful?

For Sale - New computer with an Intel chip inside

Oh, did I mention that the Intel chip was on the built-in ethernet card? Did you think I meant the CPU? Sorry. Caveat emptor. Enjoy your new AMD computer!


If you want a real life example:

http://www.legalzoom.com/lawsuits-settlements/more-litigation/pepsi-accuses-coke-deceptive
Pepsi's suit centers on a Powerade commercial with two Amish farmers racing horse-drawn carts. The farmer with 10 bales of hay on his cart easily defeats his opponent who's hauling 50 bales. The ad's narrator announces, "Ten is less than fifty," in reference to Powerade Option's 10-calorie serving versus Gatorade's 50 calories.

However, Gatorade feels the ad implies Powerade Option not only has less calories but can also provide more energy, a claim Coke cannot substantiate. While Powerade Option does contain less calories, the drink cannot refuel athletes in the same manner as Gatorade.

Coke clearly felt the claim had some merit and pulled in their reins. In fact, the company agreed to modify its ad campaign. The revised ad will make it clear that Powerade Option has fewer calories and less carbohydrate energy than Gatorade.

It's certainly true that 10 is less than 50, but it was considered misleading.

 

[Uncayimmy]

And the FTC has already stated that there is nothing deceptive with Taco Bell's advertising...

You've got a non-starter on your hands here, UY.

Where did the FTC make a public comment specifically about this lawsuit? It is my understanding that they have not made any comment since they only make comments when bringing charges.

 

[Emet]

If you want a real life example:

It's certainly true that 10 is less than 50, but it was considered misleading.

So in the case you mentioned, it appears Coke voluntarily pulled and modified it's ad and the case never went to court. Is that correct?

TB at least seems to believe that the lawsuit against them is without merit.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Where did the FTC make a public comment specifically about this lawsuit? It is my understanding that they have not made any comment since they only make comments when bringing charges.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0202-taco-bell-meat-20110202,0,3075583,full.story

Have you read this thread? It's been quoted quite a few times.


Oh, you need a response specifically about this lawsuit? How about: The FTC spokesperson has stated that there are no specific rules.

 

[Babbylonian]

For Sale - New computer with an Intel chip inside

Oh, did I mention that the Intel chip was on the built-in ethernet card? Did you think I meant the CPU? Sorry. Caveat emptor. Enjoy your new AMD computer!

I see your point, but it has no relation to the topic under discussion. If I serve you a taco containing seasoned ground beef that is 80% ground beef, are you going to take issue with me calling it a "ground beef taco?" Is there some ingredient amongst the other 20% of the mixture that could possibly make the other 80% not ground beef?

 

[Uncayimmy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0202-taco-bell-meat-20110202,0,3075583,full.story

Have you read this thread? It's been quoted quite a few times.


Oh, you need a response specifically about this lawsuit? How about: The FTC spokesperson has stated that there are no specific rules.

The quote is, "The Federal Trade Commission is the agency that regulates whether or not advertising is deceptive. The FTC has no specific rules that define what can be advertised as meat or beef, said Betsy Lordan, an FTC spokeswoman."

That does not negate the issue of misleading advertising, which you claimed is a "non-starter." You are continuing to confuse "truthfulness" and "misleading" as well as whether specific words have specific meanings as far as the FTC is concerned. I'm sorry that you don't understand how deceptive advertising cases are addressed, and I have little interest in continuing to explain this to you considering that you are probably for the first time in your life actually looking at the laws (if you've even read them). Please feel free to continue with your simplistic understanding rather than spend a few hours actually learning about the subject.

That is all.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The quote is, "The Federal Trade Commission is the agency that regulates whether or not advertising is deceptive. The FTC has no specific rules that define what can be advertised as meat or beef, said Betsy Lordan, an FTC spokeswoman."

That does not negate the issue of misleading advertising, which you claimed is a "non-starter." You are continuing to confuse "truthfulness" and "misleading" as well as whether specific words have specific meanings as far as the FTC is concerned. I'm sorry that you don't understand how deceptive advertising cases are addressed, and I have little interest in continuing to explain this to you considering that you are probably for the first time in your life actually looking at the laws (if you've even read them). Please feel free to continue with your simplistic understanding rather than spend a few hours actually learning about the subject.

That is all.

Gee, thanks for the condescending tone, UY. I appreciate being spoken to like I'm a little kid that doesn't know anything.

But, your insecurities aside, we're discussing advertising. There is nothing misleading about Taco Bell advertising their beef tacos as containing seasoned ground beef because that's what they contain.

The Coke vs Pepsi bit is irrelevant as it wasn't the content of the ingredients that was considered misleading, it was the perceived comparison between the benefits Pepsi and Coke. Taco Bell is not comparing their product to anyone else's, and even then, if Taco Bell were simply to be advertising that they have more beef than other companies, they'd only have to show that they were doing so.

It is not, however, misleading for Taco Bell to label their ingredient "seasoned ground beef" when that's what it is - whether it's what you personally agree with or not.

 

[BenBurch]

I know who is right here, so there is no point in argument. We'll see if the court system will find the right verdict. Note, however, that this was filed in a Texas jurisdiction known for finding for plaintiffs under the most tenuous of circumstances...

 

[Emet]

I know who is right here, so there is no point in argument. We'll see if the court system will find the right verdict. Note, however, that this was filed in a Texas jurisdiction known for finding for plaintiffs under the most tenuous of circumstances...

The lawsuit was filed in California:

http://www.wsfa.com/Global/link.asp?L=473242

 

[Furcifer]

3B (you can be a terrible communicator, friend) seems to be making the point that if you go to the grocery store to buy seasoned ground beef, they could only call (a) seasoned ground beef by law.

Yes, I can be. And yes, my point is if you and I went anywhere to buy "seasoned ground beef", cooked or raw, from a grocery store, which under the law is a "retailer" and the exact same as a restaurant, they could only give you 100% beef, with a maximum 30% fat.

I think of it like this. We sold many "ready to eat" products at the deli I worked at, cabbage rolls, stuffed pork chops, cordon bleu etc. If the store were to sell "ground beef" and beside it "ready to eat seasoned ground beef", it would have to be seasoned and cooked regular ground beef and not "beef taco filling". To make changes to the product like Taco Bell does and call it "seasoned ground beef" would be misleading.

The way the law is relevant (it's not applicable) to this discussion is simply that it creates an expectation in the minds of consumers about the meaning of seasoned ground beef when seen in another context. It's a reasonable point to make.

Yes relevant is the correct word I should have used. However, we are about to see if it's applicable under the law.

Second, I'm suspicious as to why the yeast is added. If the effect of the yeast is to combine with the starches, water and heat to create air pockets and thus pump up the volume, that's a deceptive trade practice because I'm actually getting ground beef, seasoning, and air pockets I wouldn't normally get.

This is exactly why I'm not sure Taco Bell actually uses "ground beef". The product they receive from the meat packer is already cooked. The texture and consistency of the product suggests to me they add the seasoning during the grinding process and not during the cooking process.

Technically "ground beef" is two passes through the fine plate of a grinder. The first pass gives a blotchy red and white product, the second pass gives you that traditional pinkish/red "ground beef". A third pass through the grinder gives you a much lighter product that resembles and tastes very much like a hotdog. It's commonly known as forcemeat. Oats, sugar and yeast in a forcemeat would result in a puffy, pebbly meat with uniform texture. Perhaps I'm being a bit of a purist, but I'm pretty sure that's what Taco Bell's filling actually is.

 

[BenBurch]

The lawsuit was filed in California:

http://www.wsfa.com/Global/link.asp?L=473242

Really? The radio story I heard was just plain wrong, then!

 

[mortimer]

Yes, I can be. And yes, my point is if you and I went anywhere to buy "seasoned ground beef", cooked or raw, from a grocery store, which under the law is a "retailer" and the exact same as a restaurant, they could only give you 100% beef, with a maximum 30% fat.

Even if your contention that "seasoned" can only include the seasonings you want it to include, Taco Bell doesn't sell "seasoned ground beef". So there's no problem there.