Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thanks. Personally, I think this is NUTS -- no pun intended. I cannot believe this woman didn't read the ingredients. Customers will get something like $20 apiece, per the press reports I've read. And the lawyers? Argh!
The issue is not that she can't read. She read the marketing, determined that it is full of lies, and was willing to sue. She's acting as a watchdog, holding a manufacturer accountable. We should be happy about that.
Anonymous wrote:well, i'm a relatively smart person (phi beta kappa, top 10 law school) and i kind of took the advertising at it's word. i feel stupid now, after reading this thread, but i kind of thought maybe there was something special about hazelnuts and didn't think much more about it.
so, i won't offer the "brown stuff" for our sunday waffles and will stop eating nutella and peanut butter on the same spoon (so tasty, by the way).
anyway, not everyone remembers to read the labels and think super hard about their food. not really justifying it, but i think it's fair to acknowledge that some reasonably smart folks could have let laziness reign the day and have some right to be annoyed now that the advertising was misleading.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do I have to prove I bought it or will they take my word?
I had no idea that Nutella was unhealthy. My kids often sit down for a healthy breakfast of poptarts, with Nutella spread on them.
![]()
Mine, too -- with a milkshake on the side, for dairy.
This is making me laugh. This would be like saying McDonald's is healthy (pre-salad days). Or smoking did not give you cancer. How can anyone sympathize with people who think this?Anonymous wrote:Yes and we should put a stop to it. Good for her. Lying shouldn't be tolerated. The product claims to be made of "hazelnuts, skim milk and a hint of cocoa". If you haven't tried it you might believe it and buy it.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thanks. Personally, I think this is NUTS -- no pun intended. I cannot believe this woman didn't read the ingredients. Customers will get something like $20 apiece, per the press reports I've read. And the lawyers? Argh!
The issue is not that she can't read. She read the marketing, determined that it is full of lies, and was willing to sue. She's acting as a watchdog, holding a manufacturer accountable. We should be happy about that.
Huh? Since when is spreadable chocolate healthy?
On another note, companies are feeding us bullshit advertisements all day long.....
Yes and we should put a stop to it. Good for her. Lying shouldn't be tolerated. The product claims to be made of "hazelnuts, skim milk and a hint of cocoa". If you haven't tried it you might believe it and buy it.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thanks. Personally, I think this is NUTS -- no pun intended. I cannot believe this woman didn't read the ingredients. Customers will get something like $20 apiece, per the press reports I've read. And the lawyers? Argh!
The issue is not that she can't read. She read the marketing, determined that it is full of lies, and was willing to sue. She's acting as a watchdog, holding a manufacturer accountable. We should be happy about that.
Huh? Since when is spreadable chocolate healthy?
On another note, companies are feeding us bullshit advertisements all day long.....
Anonymous wrote:It's incredible to me that people get money for being dumb.