• JCreazy@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    132
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    On the surface this might sound silly but after looking at the chocolate it’s straight up false advertisement. They know people will buy it specifically because of the way it looks. It’s bait and switch.

    • ZeroCool@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yeah, this isn’t like a fast food burger that isn’t quite as elegantly stacked as it appears on a tv commercial or something. This is clearly advertising a candy with a jack-o-lantern shaped cutout in the chocolate while selling you something different. It makes for a silly headline that’s perfect for this community, but if she wants to sue them over it I’m gonna side with her on this one.

      It’s deceptive and corporations shouldn’t be allowed to get away with crap like this. Because if we let them get away with this little lie they won’t stop there. They will only get bolder and more egregious.

  • Jhogenbaum@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Honestly, I feel her. I opened one of these in my child’s Halloween candy bag and felt misled.

    • seang96@spgrn.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      Last time I saw this someone mentioned the football ones. They are basically the same shape as the eggs for Easter, but show the lines on a football in the packaging.

      • limelight79@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        We call those “eggballs” for that reason. Gotta hand it to Hershey for finding a second use for that pattern like that.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      look, if they’re charging $4.50, I had better get something better than a turd when I open the package. put a squiggle on it and make it look like a football or whatever.

      just sayin’

  • moistclump@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The way the headline is worded makes me think it’s trying to spark outrage and debate against the woman suing.

    But also boy did I learn my lesson about not judging Joe Shmoe vs Corporate after learning more about the McDonald’s hot coffee case.

    I’m gonna withhold judgement and see where this ends up!

    • TokyoMonsterTrucker@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The McDonald’s lady required skin grafts. This woman suffered mild disappointment. There is no possible comparison between the two cases. False advertising? Yes. Refer to FTC for penalties. Harm suffered? Virtually zero. This is a frivolous lawsuit and waste of any court’s time.

      • moistclump@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think that’s what the headline is trying to get you to say. And we had the same reaction with the McDonald’s case. But I hope we’re getting a bit wiser that when the story is spun this way it’s not too far out there to think that the corporation could have employed a media consultant to help spin this as “Americans sue over everything this case is dumb” when in reality there might be a good case under there that it’s easy to dismiss or ignore.

        I suspect that’s the low hanging spin for corporations who are being held accountable. “Don’t sue us, that’s dumb! Look how dumb she’s being. Entitled! Money grab!”

        • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I totally agree with the notion that the article is meant to illicit that thinking as well as it being false advertising, but at the same time this particular case doesn’t have quite the same impact as the McDonald’s Coffee case. Nobody is physically being harmed by the candy not having a face. What could be deeper than simply the disappointment of not seeing that little jack-o’-lantern face when you unwrap the peanut butter cup?

  • Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    They need to label it more clearly. The thing in the package is what the jack o’ lantern pooped out.

  • RanchOnPancakes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’d never noticed. They go into my mouth hole so fast that I can’t say I’ve looked at the actual design.

  • grayman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    The lawsuit also takes issue with the Reese’s Peanut Butter Footballs, which have carved out laces on their packaging, but instead “look like an egg” when viewing the actual product.

    LACES OUT, DAN!