Victim of Racial Discrimination? You Take 'Em to . . . Arbitration?

The old People's Court with Judge Wapner featured commentator Doug Llewelyn coining a phrase that became iconic in American legal culture:  "If you're involved in a dispute such as this with another party and you just can't seem to work it out, don't take the law into your own hands - you take 'em to court."

See video below at :30:



When an African-American man sued Airbnb over racial discrimination, he discovered that he can't "take 'em to court."  His Airbnb account contract included an enforceable mandatory arbitration clause.  So instead of presenting his evidence to an impartial, competent judge or jury, he will have the opportunity to present his case to non-judicial decision-maker who makes a living out of deciding cases for Airbnb and similar parties.  Could such a decision-maker likely have some innate partiality toward a business or industry that provides his/her livelihood?

What do you think?

Is KFC up to No Good, Again?

Back in 2004, KFC got into a jam with the FTC over claims that its chicken meals were healthier than Burger King Whoppers. That factual claim turned out to be a whopper of its own.

Now TMZ is reporting that a woman has sued KFC for $20 M because the $20 "Family Fill Up" bucket of chicken she bought looked nothing like the visual presentation of the product in the advertisements. In the advertisements, some of which are reproduced below, the meal includes an overflowing bucket of large chicken pieces. The unhappy customer quipped of her purchase:

“They say it feeds the whole family … They’re showing a bucket that’s overflowing with chicken.” . . . “You get half a bucket! That’s false advertising, and it doesn’t feed the whole family. They’re small pieces!”

At the time of publication of this post, no details about the form or make-up of the lawsuit were available.

A Gun in Every Toy Chest?

Children are precious. As a society, we employ law in diverse ways to protect children from any of a host of physical and emotional dangers.  It is hardly controversial that there are laws designed to protect kids from the obvious dangers of abuse and neglect. Kids also must be in car seats, wear helmets while riding bikes, and refrain from unhealthy eating at school.  Kids can't operate heavy machinery, make contracts or buy cough syrup.  Why, then, do we tolerate marketing directly to children? Issues have arisen in the past with direct marketing of food, cigarettes and cars among other products.  But the latest controversy involves direct marketing of guns to children in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings.

If law reflects our values, what conclusions should be drawn about how we value childhood vs. business profits? This direct marketing seeks to cash in on a demographic that is not experienced enough to make wise decisions. Further, these marketing programs define culture for children by creating phony "suggestions" of what life should include. The question that I find myself asking my students on an increasingly regular basis is, "Is this the best that we can do?"

Image source: NY Times

What Doesn't Kill You Makes You . . . Wish You Didn't Do It.

FDA regulations on prescription drug advertising requires that the potential risks from taking the drug be presented in balance with the potential benefits. An informed consumer can then make a rational decision whether or not to risk those "oily fecal discharges" as a tradeoff to curing some other malady.  See this related post.

Below are two ads for anti-depressants that have got to give one pause.