Judges Dismisses Key Parts of Gluten-free Lawsuit against McDonald's French Fries
Jefferson Adams is a freelance writer living in San Francisco. His poems, essays and photographs have appeared in Antioch Review, Blue Mesa Review, CALIBAN, Hayden's Ferry Review, Huffington Post, the Mississippi Review, and Slate among others.
He is a member of both the National Writers Union, the International Federation of Journalists, and covers San Francisco Health News for Examiner.com.View all articles by Jefferson Adams
Celiac.com 06/08/2007 - On May 30th, federal judge Elaine E. Bucklo dismissed key parts of a lawsuit against McDonalds regarding the gluten-free status of their famous French fries.
The case, In Re McDonalds French Fries Litigation (MDL-1784), was brought in February 2006, by two Florida plaintiffs on behalf of their autistic daughter who allegedly suffered ill effects from eating McDonalds French fries. At the time, the company claimed that the French fries were gluten-free.
The lawsuit claimed in part that McDonalds "failure to disclose the fact that their French fries contained gluten constitutes deceptive, unfair, unconscionable, misleading and fraudulent trade practices," and that "McDonalds unfairly and unjustly profited from their conduct. The judge dismissed claims of fraud, breach of implied warranty, and a request for injunctive relief, but left intact two counts, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.
In its arguments for dismissal, McDonalds claimed that most of the plaintiffs legal causes of action were barred as a matter of law. Basically, McDonalds asserted that the plaintiffs pled themselves out of court by arguing facts that undermined their own claim.
The plaintiffs fraud allegations were rejected because they failed to meet the specificity required under the federal rules. McDonalds argued that the plaintiffs claim of fraud and misrepresentation failed to state how, when, or where the alleged misrepresentations took place. Federal Rule 9(b) of Civil Procedure requires that all claims of fraud be stated with particularity; otherwise, they face dismissal.
Judge Bucklo rejected the plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief because she found there was no threat of future wrongful conduct. The company revised its web site in 2006 to show that its fries and hash browns contain gluten. Also, the publicity brought by the suit arguably eliminated any need for injunctive relief.
The plaintiffs have 28 days to amend their complaint or the lawsuit will go forward based on the two remaining counts.health writer who lives in San Francisco and is a frequent author of articles for Celiac.com.
As always, Celiac.com welcomes your comments (see below).