Five Million USD dollar Lawsuit Launched Against McDonald's for charging them for unwanted cheese on Quarter Pounder burgers

Bad maths wrote:

Not a half-pounder wrote:

Does a "Double Quarter Pounder (r) with Cheese" have the normal amount of Cheese, or a double amount of it?

Both have two slices of cheese.

I think it's well-known that while the Cheeseburger has one slice of cheese, and the Double Cheeseburger has two, the Triple Cheeseburger does not add a third.

What kind of marketing scheme is this? Can I get a DoubleCheeseSlice with burger somehow?

What are all you shkotzim doing mixing meat and dairy anyway?

Postman Pat. Postman Pat. Postman Pat and his black and white cat

I never want cheese on my hamburger or any kind of pork product. But usually have to pay for it there are no more original hamburgers left on menus.

Burger King is anxiously awaiting the trial outcome?

Bacon costs extra........ wrote:

What are you lactating intolerants eating cows for? Don't you know they are the ones producing the poison you don't want in your body?

+1

Spewed my PopTarts out my nose laughing when I read this.

It's like suing race organizers for not lowering ticket prices even though you're adamantly refusing the shirts, food, and whatever that's supposed to come along with registering for the race.

$30 for a 5k even without the shirt that's supposed to be included? I'm gonna sue you for $5k times 1,000 ($5 million), you 5k knuckleheads!

This makes me think of Seinfeld and all of Kramer's lawsuits.

Is the stuff McDonald's uses actually technically even "cheese"?

I think one reason KFC changed its name is that "chicken" was a term of art, and EU objected.

not fat no cheese please wrote:

That's the whole point. I want a hamburger, no cheese. Quarter pounder. It used to be available. I think this lawsuit is very smart. Do you know how much they make off those 40 cents per burger from lactose intolerant people who ask the cheese to be removed?

Does the same logic apply to other ingredients? Some people are allergic to tomatoes. Should there be a price deduction for a burger with no tomatoes?

Anyway, if you have special dietary needs, you probably shouldn't be eating at a restaurant where the contents of the food is a complete mystery. Who the hell even knows what is in the "meat" itself?

mystery meat wrote:

Does the same logic apply to other ingredients? Some people are allergic to tomatoes. Should there be a price deduction for a burger with no tomatoes?

Anyway, if you have special dietary needs, you probably shouldn't be eating at a restaurant where the contents of the food is a complete mystery. Who the hell even knows what is in the "meat" itself?

I believe anything labeled beef, pork or chicken at a fast food restaurant must contain at least 51% beef, pork orchicen.

Back in college I worked at this restaurant where the most popular item was the chicken finger sub. This came with 3 chicken fingers and whatever cheese, sauce, and veggies you wanted.

It was also the exact same price as the "veggie sub" which was the same thing as above minus 3 chicken fingers.

I will definitely be following this case closely and if it goes well I will file my own lawsuit against the injustices served up on a stale sub roll by this establishment.

^ since it was you serving up those stale subs, won't you be suing yourself?

I wonder if you can legally name your own self as a defendant in a lawsuit.

Didn't the Roman Empire has a fully clogged judicial system in the 4th century (i.e. right before it fell), with heaps of frivolous lawsuits?

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/10/pimp_whose_100_million_suit_fa.html