Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Proposed and Enacted 'Cheeseburger Bills' Limiting Obesity Lawsuits
The issue of obesity in the American population has become a hot national topic. While there has been some dispute among interested groups as to the extent of the problem, it seems clear that obesity causes health conditions that include diabetes, heart disease and sleep apnea. Indeed, authorities as established as former Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher have stated that the problem of obesity may eventually cause as much preventable disease and death as cigarette smoking. The sparkplug event on the issue in the legal community was the filing of the Pelman v. McDonald's Corp. action in a New York state court in August 2002, which was removed to federal court a month later. In that action, two girls, as members of a putative class action of minors, alleged that their obesity and other health problems were caused by their heavy diet of McDonald's products. The noise on the issue was amplified by the Second Circuit's decision in Pelman v. McDonald's Corp., 396 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2004), reversing the district court's dismissal of the action.
The publicity generated primarily by the Pelman matter prompted many state legislatures and the U.S. Congress to propose and/or enact statutes, which have become known as “Cheeseburger Bills,” limiting the liability of food manufacturers, sellers and marketers from claims arising out of obesity and other associated health conditions. These bills seek to prevent the food industry from becoming the “New Tobacco,” as some pundits have predicted.
The purpose of this article is to analyze the components of these statutes, compare the different approaches taken in the state legislatures, and analyze how the statutes will impact the litigation marketplace to the extent that it can be done at this early stage.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.