241
submitted 10 months ago by Stamau123@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

HERSHEY, Pa. (CBS) -- A Florida woman is upset about the lack of designs on Reese's holiday-themed peanut butter candy - and now she's taking parent company Hershey to court over it.

Cynthia Kelly filed a federal class-action lawsuit Thursday in the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Florida, alleging several Reese's products don't match their photos as depicted on the wrappers.

For example, Reese's peanut butter pumpkins are merely pumpkin-shaped hunks of peanut-butter-stuffed chocolate, and the actual product has no Jack O'lantern-style carvings as the wrapper depicts, Kelly alleges.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

What's the point of giving a huge, extremely powerful corporation even more leeway to exaggerate the quality of their products?

Maybe the point is that people need to stop being so naive about what they expect food products to look like.

There was no claim made that the candy sold was anything more than candy in the shape of Halloween items.

Hopefully, like, the standard that the images on the packaging are reflective of the actual product, or severely labeled as exaggerations with a real description included elsewhere?

The latter is probably the most they'd be forced to do, since 99% of the problem here is that people have extremely unrealistic expectations.

Product packages, from the supermodels they showcase to the highly polished representations of the products have always been exaggerated and simulated to some degree. When did people lose all common sense believing they were getting the most ideal version if the item they were purchasing?

The law only requires that the product is what it says is being sold: ie. you don't get apples if the package says oranges.

But if the photos show beautiful, bright oranges, and you get a few that are underripe and green looking, what complaint can be made? You can ask for a refund at the store, but you'd be an idiot if you thought suing Sunkist was reasonable.

I think a Karen was upset, realized there were other Karens who also have unreasonable expectations, and they decided to try for a lawsuit.

As much as I can't stand corporations, especially ones profiting off the suffering of cows, I don't see any legitimate complaint here.

[-] stoneparchment@possumpat.io 5 points 10 months ago

Okay, I agree it is "common sense" that advertisements are not usually indicative of reality. But it is only "common sense" because we have a culture where people are allowed to sell products using misleading advertising.

Honestly, I think advertisements as they exist in our culture mainly prey on our evolutionary biases. They exploit our drives that were originally designed to help us survive. The fact they are misleading is the point, in order to increase profits. Frankly, I don't think advertisements as they exist today are ethical at all, and I'd root for any party that wants to push to change that culture.

At what point would you draw the line of acceptability? Is it fine to advertise a fluffy loaf of delicious sourdough, and the product is a literal brick of hard tack? Is it fine to advertise a pair of denim jeans and receive polyester jeggings?

This is especially true when you must pay for the product before examining its contents. Sure, if your mesh bag of oranges at the store doesn't look like the label, maybe you're right that you should be fine with whatever you get, given that you can look at the product before purchasing. But what if you spent money buying a bespoke gift box of heirloom oranges as a present for a family member and they got a taped together amazon box with some green and half rotten oranges it in?

The promise of quality is part of the product. We could improve people's lives substantially by requiring realitistic advertising. It's learned helplessness to just accept the shit-cake because "well, you were stupid for expecting better".

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

I do agree, especially the point that today's advertising is unethical. I try to avoid marketing, and I shop based on unit price and never the photo on the box.

Current consumer laws do protect against certain forms of bad business practice.

If you're sold apples, you shouldn't be getting oranges. You should also have the expectation that what you are purchasing actually works and isn't defective.

But so much of marketing portrays ideals or intangibles, so it's hard to have laws protecting against it.

You buy hair color, expecting that it will make you beautiful, but that's not reality. A lot goes into hair styling, and even the color you chose has to match your face, and your face has to be decent if you expect to look "beautiful".

In marketing, products are all designed to make you stronger, more beautiful, faster, jump higher, "look cool", be desirable to the opposite sex, be better in bed, have pro-level skills, etc. This is partly why ads can be so harmful to mental health: you are always inadequate unless you have their product.

At the end of the day, my advice to anyone is to avoid any and all forms of ads and marketing (if possible), and to be skeptical of what the package says/shows. Use a stores refund policy whenever you received something you weren't expecting, and spend money based on your needs and not imaginary ideals.

this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
241 points (100.0% liked)

News

23284 readers
4216 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS