Never mind Helen and Dave paying McD's 60,000, there are much bigger damages to be recouped now the Judge has given his verdict.
It has now been proven to be fact that McDonald's exploit children through advertising and workers through low pay and are culpably responsible for cruelty to animals. Surely now they should be paying damages to these exploited groups?
Does anyone have any thoughts on how much compensation a child should receive for being exploited by the adverts? I suppose it depends on how much they were affected. I suspect most kids would only have been a few dozen times as a direct result, and so should only receive a few hundred pounds. But there will have been some who went on to eat at McDonald's several times a week for several years thereby giving them a very real risk of getting heart disease as a direct result (as the Judge ruled). These individuals surely deserve substantial compensation.
And then you have to multiply the figures by the number of children affected.
And then there's the workers exploited through low pay. A million and a half of them around the world. (Although the Judge only ruled on the UK wages).
And then there's the animals suffering cruelty for which McDonald's are responsible.
Is there any mechanism by which these groups can claim compensation? Or are McDonald's going to get off scott free?
Sweet FA, inspired by McLibel. Again.