Day 024 - 15 Sep 94 - Page 06

     
     1
     2   Q.   We will go into more detail on that a little later on.
     3        Can you give us a summary of what the second major dispute
     4        you had with McDonald's in 1987?
     5        A.  In the early part of 1987, I learned that McDonald's
     6        was advertising the nutritional attributes of its products
     7        in what was both in some respects false and in other
     8        respects a misleading and deceptive manner.  On behalf of
     9        the state of Texas the Attorney Generals office wrote to
    10        McDonald's advising them there was a problem, that they
    11        were violating the law, as I recall -- I would have to see
    12        the letter to be specific on that -- and requesting or
    13        demanding they stopped the practice, stopped, in
    14        particular, these advertisements as they were currently
    15        constituted.
    16
    17   Q.   Because they were ---?
    18        A.  Because the advertisements were both inspecific and,
    19        when considered as a whole, were deceptive.  They claimed
    20        in an implicit manner but in a manner that, in my
         judgment, consumers would believe, and certainly in a
    22        manner McDonald's wanted consumers to believe, that
    23        McDonald's food was, as a whole, nutritious.  As a whole,
    24        McDonald's food is not nutritious, making that claim as a
    25        violation of our law.  It is also a violation of the New
    26        York law and the California state law prohibiting false
    27        and deceptive advertising marketing practices.
    28
    29   Q.   Did this advertising campaign cease after you threatened
    30        some kind of legal action?
    31        A.  After we wrote to McDonald's, engaged in some form of
    32        continued conversations, we received assurances from
    33        McDonald's that the campaign was not -- had a finite
    34        term.  There were some insertions in magazines that they
    35        advised us could not be stopped, but they promised us that
    36        no new insertions, no new advertisements, had been placed
    37        since shortly after they received my initial communication
    38        from them.
    39
    40        Because we were still attempting to work with the entire
         fastfood industry in a co-operative effort to get this
    42        information out to the American public, we decided against
    43        taking further enforcement action, although McDonald's did
    44        promise us that if it stopped the practice we still, under
    45        our laws, could have sued for penalties and injunctive
    46        relief.  Our laws do not require us to take the word of
    47        companies that an act or practice is stopped.  They
    48        certainly do not require us to waive penalties just
    49        because a company says it will not violate the law again.
    50        However, in the interest of co-operation, in this instance 
    51        we did accept McDonald's assurance it would voluntarily 
    52        comply with our laws. 
    53
    54   Q.   These were two fairly substantial disputes with
    55        McDonald's, is that correct?  What I am trying to say is,
    56        was there something your office was focusing on at the
    57        exclusion to your work with other companies?
    58        A.  This was just -- both of these were just in the course
    59        of my duties as an Assistant Attorney General.  McDonald's
    60        was no higher up on the scale than many other companies.