Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Press Talk' started by sand_man, May 1, 2016.
Starbucks faces $5M lawsuit over amount of ice in its iced beverages
This is what is wrong with America. That we would pay Starbucks prices to begin with makes one question our sanity. That this is worth $5 mil removes all doubt.
LOL If I was Starbucks I'd just declare bankruptcy and then re-open under say a name like "The New Statrbucks , or Starbucks II".The lawsuit is as stupid as the lawsuit against McDonalds the time the lady spilled hot coffee in her lap.
I'm telling y'all: there is money to be made out there.
You just have to find an accomplice, er, I mean a lawyer.
This could be way bigger than Starbucks.
Even if they settle out of court, it could be a ton of money (for the record, not literally a ton).
A while back, somebody got a bunch of money because he filed suit against Subway because Subway's "foot long subs" were only 11-1/2 inches long or something.
Litigiousness! Ain't it grand! You don't have to be right, just offer the question.
Until we (???) start fining and jailing shylocks over frivilous junk suits like this, this mess will go on. I need to send Richard Swartz a damned bill for having to see his ugly green toothed ass on TV every 3 minutes during the day. He says call me and I'm thinking he don't really want me to. If I ever call him, it'll be serious, and I don't mean because of a wreck. I swear, sometimes I could go postal on his a$$.
Lighten up a little. He's simplified it to
Hmm does he do free consultations to determine if there is merit in a case?
merit, or money?
All of his consultations are free. Only money he charges is a) percentage of settlement if he wins, and b) i believe certain court costs. You call, a screener takes the info, confers with an attorney, confers with you, if they accept then you sign contract, they send out investigator, etc
It used to annoy me, too, back before I quit watching TV.
Well now, that shoulda been a "class action" suit and the plaintiffs all shoulda gotten coupons for a free 6" sub or something as the "settlement".
But, generally, the government seems to benefit from the really large suits and keeps the fine money and never passes it on to the actual victims (real or imagined) from what I've seen, so probably the bureaucrats would have all been eating free Subways sammiches for a few years if the government managed to cut itself in.
The attorney who files a class action suit gets a major portion.
The poor, "damaged" individual gets VERY little of class action settlements.
You probably heard of Fen-Phen:
Judge OKs $3.75 Billion Fen-Phen Payment
I guess the idiots never thought of saying, "Easy on the ice." I guess telling them exactly what they want would be too simple.
While I sat for many hours at the hospital today the local channel we were forced to listen to (NBC) had lawyer ads every 10 minutes! All the ambulance chasers said the same thing! Get hurt call us and we will get you money! There used to be laws against this until lawyers got in power!
We used to have severe limits on the ambulance chasers in this state until they
got a majority in the legislature and changed things to suit themselves and their
greed; it used to be outright illegal for one to advertise but the TV stations and
other media wanted that advertising revenue so they backed removing those
limits. If I had a buck for each time during the day that I have to hit the mute
button when old "one call that's all" erupts on the screen I could take one heck
of a vacation trip!!
It's especially fun when you notice that they've just hooked up an IV bag of the stuff the lawyers are asking for people who have suffered wrongful death from.
I especially like the ads that say "if you or someone you know has suffered a wrongful death from Drug X"....Suing from beyond the grave is undoubtedly rough, spending the settlement is probably even tougher.
The "lawyers shall not advertise" was instituted by the Mississippi Bar Association rather than the legislature as I recall. (I could be wrong, but I am old enough to remember the change.)
They did it by claiming that they were a "profession"---not like those unscrupulous used car salesmen and such.
A profession used to mean "a job having specialized educational training and legal qualification, formal or mandatory study, having strict oversight or is self-regulating,"
They wanted to present an image that, as members of the bar, all lawyers were equally qualified to service a client.
One rumored purpose for prohibiting advertising was to ensure that inept lawyers got some business. The idea was that effective lawyers would be able to publicize their record if they were allowed to advertise.
Obviously, things have not worked out that way!
It also saved lawyers a ton of money in advertising expenses.
Some relevant links:
Supreme Court revises lawyer advertising rules
SCHWARTZ v. WELCH | Leagle.com