The lawsuit’s been widely covered so usually I wouldn’t bother linking, but there’s been mockery over it, and the mockery is wrong.
Just look at the picture.
Almost anything you buy, the picture on the package is prettier than what’s inside, but the imagery on these candy wrappers is PhotoShop BS, a flat-out lie.
I stand with Cynthia Kelly, and hope Hershey pays her the $5M she’s asking.
Dec 29 (Reuters) - Hershey has been sued by a Florida woman who said its holiday-themed Reese’s peanut butter candies lack the artistic details shown on the packaging that make them worth buying.
In a proposed federal class action filed on Thursday and seeking at least $5 million, Cynthia Kelly accused Hershey of deceiving reasonable consumers by falsely promising that its candies would contain “explicit carved out artistic designs.”
She said she would not have paid $4.49 in October at an Aldi for a bag of Reese’s Peanut Butter Pumpkins, had she known that the candies not only lacked the “cute looking” carved eyes and mouth shown on the packaging, but any carvings at all.
The complaint said Hershey’s labels “are materially misleading and numerous consumers have been tricked and misled by the pictures on the products’ packaging.”
It cited several videos on Google’s YouTube, and included illustrations such as a Reese’s Peanut Butter footBall shaped like a football, but missing the laces shown on the packaging.
Hershey did not immediately respond on Friday to requests for comment. Kelly’s lawyer did not immediately respond to a similar request.
The plaintiff filed her lawsuit in the federal court in Tampa, Florida.
She is seeking damages for Florida purchasers of Reese’s Peanut Butter Pumpkins, White Pumpkins, Pieces Pumpkins, Peanut Butter Ghost, White Ghost, Peanut Butter Bats, Peanut Butter footBalls and Peanut Butter Shapes Assortment Snowmen Stockings Bells for violations of that state’s consumer protection laws.
Kelly’s lawyer has also filed lawsuits accusing Burger King and Taco Bell of selling food that when served looks less enticing than advertised.
The case is Kelly v Hershey Co, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, No. 23-02977.
It also shows it with a bite taken out of it, yet any consumer would reasonably be upset if their candy had a bite already taken out of it.
Reese’s have always been fully covered with chocolate, and their advertising and packaging has for many years shown that inside was peanut butter, I don’t see how this is any different. I think a stronger argument is that many of the holiday shakes are simple lumps that in no way resemble the thing it’s supposed to be, but as filed I don’t see her winning this. Her best hope is that hersheys will settle for a few ten thousand to make this go away, but even that seems like a long shot.
The question is whether a typical consumer would not have purchased the product had the packaging been more true to the product. The detailed etchings would clearly be perceived as a positive feature that is missing from the product by most consumers, while the missing bite would not.
This is akin to McDonald’s burgers not actually having sesame seeds. They don’t add any flavor, and they don’t add any more texture than the detailed etchings would - I would argue less. Would it be okay for them to omit sesame seeds but keep them in their marketing material?
The concept that substantial embellishment in marketing material is morally acceptable and to be expected needs to die. Not only is it disingenuous at best, but it should be clear from your own comment that there will never be consensus on the boundaries of false advertising.
Personally, I avoid the holiday ones because of their “fun” shapes. I don’t know if it’s because ratios are different or the candy is just different because they make it somewhere else, but the holiday ones always taste worse.
I don’t see how it’s different than buying a bag of peeps and getting a bag of marshmallows.
It still tastes the same, why are these uppity poors complaining?