With brief, occasional, italicized and sometimes gratuitous commentary…
• From Reuters:
"A federal judge in Chicago has dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit accusing Walmart Inc of deceiving shoppers by selling Fudge Mint cookies that lacked fudge and mint.
"Eugene DeMaso, of La Salle, Illinois, said packaging for the cookies sold under Walmart's Great Value label misled reasonable consumers because the cookies' 'fudge' contained no milkfat and its 'mint' contained no mint ingredients … U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland said no cases showed that consumers expect 'fudge' to contain milkfat, and DeMaso undercut his argument by asserting that fudge could contain vegetable oils, as Walmart's cookies did.
"Rowland also agreed with Walmart that 'mint' promised a flavor, not actual mint."
Walmart said it was pleased with the decision. The plaintiff reportedly is considering an appeal.
I know not everybody agrees with me on this, but I think that if you are going to say that something has fudge in it, it ought not be necessary to play word games to win the argument - it ought to have actual fudge. And actual mint, not artificial flavoring. I understand that packaging language, often tiny print, can serve as a defense, but it really is about the lowering of standards.
