I don't know all the detail but a few weeks ago several tobacco companies were found guilty of causing cancer, wrongly informing the public about the dangers of smoking, advertising to children and other things...
This case found place in america which, i believe, has other judicial
"rules" about charging someone (you only have to pay your lawyer if he wins the case or something) then England where the McLibel trial found place.
So the question is, would it be possible that a large group of
people who were "misleaded by", or "fell victim off" McDonalds sued the company in america and have a big chance of winning it?
Again i don't know the presice situation...
McSpotlight: It's doubtful; as it took many years of research to provide sufficient legal proof that smoking causes cancer; the situation vis-a-vis meat eating and cancer today is similar to the situation with smoking 50 years ago; while the balance of experts holds that excessive consumption of meat can cause cancer and heart disease, they are by no means a decisive majority yet.
(Speaking personally, I don't agree entirely with the idea of suing someone else because you chose to smoke; the only justification for it is that people were deliberately misled as to the dangers of smoking; this certainly hasn't been the case for the last 20 years, yet people have continued smoking because they wanted to. If the tobacco companies had tried to suppress dissent the way that McDonald's did, then the cancer sufferers would have a solid legal case, as it is criminal to try to conceal a known health risk in the name of profit.)