McDonald's legal cases
[5] Bakshi accused Amit Jatia, who manages the chain in West and South India under Hardcastle Restaurants, of instigating McDonald's.
[6] McDonald's had sold their 50% share of the Hardcastle Restaurants joint venture to Jatia at a reported loss of 99% in 2011, making it a master franchisee.
[7] In 2017, the National Company Law Tribunal (the successor of the CLB) reinstated Bakshi as managing director of Connaught Plaza Restaurants.
[9] Though a High Court judge eventually ruled in favour of McDonald's on some counts, The Guardian environmental editor John Vidal called it a Pyrrhic victory.
Steel and Morris went on to challenge UK libel laws in the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that the lack of access to legal aid and the heavy burden of proof that lay with them, as the defendants' requirement to prove their claims under UK law was a breach of the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression.
MacJoy stated that the requirement of "actual use" in commerce in the Philippines before one may register a trademark pertains to the territorial jurisdiction on a national scale and is not merely confined to a certain locality or region.
[11] As a result, the owners of MacJoy, the Espina family, was forced to change its trademark into MyJoy,[12] which went into effect with the re-opening of its two branches in Cebu City on August that year.
In 2001, McDonald's lost a nine-year legal action against Frank Yuen, owner of McChina Wok Away, a small chain of Chinese takeaway outlets in London.
Justice David Neuberger ruled the McChina name would not cause any confusion among customers and that McDonald's had no right to the prefix Mc.
[15] In 1996, McDonald's forced Scottish sandwich shop owner Mary Blair of Fenny Stratford, Buckinghamshire to drop McMunchies as her trading name.
[16] An often reported urban legend maintains that McDonald's filed a lawsuit against MacDonald's Family Restaurant, an actual fast food establishment located in the Cayman Islands.
[17] In 1996, McDonald's lost a legal battle at the Danish Supreme Court to force Allan Pedersen, a hotdog vendor, to drop his shop name McAllan.
In 2001, McDonald's sued a small restaurant named McCurry, a popular eatery serving Indian food in Jalan Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
[19] In April 2009, however, a three-member Appeal Court panel overturned the verdict, saying that there was no evidence to show that McCurry was passing off its own product as that of McDonald's.
Continue paying your mortgage and buying expensive train sets ... by simply licensing the Top Tips concept to a multinational burger corporation.
"[33] In March 2001, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, a group of South Florida farmworkers, began a campaign demanding better wages for the people who pick the tomatoes used by McDonald's and other fast food companies.
[37] The Court certified the case on behalf of the following class: "Every consumer pursuant to the Québec Consumer Protection Act who, since November 15, 2013 purchased in Québec for a child under 13 years of age then present inside a McDonald's restaurant, a toy or Happy Meal, during an advertising campaign directed at children taking place inside the restaurant".
[38] The case was initially filed on November 15, 2013, by Quebec class action attorney Joey Zukran of LPC Avocat Inc.[39] In 2003, a ruling by the UK Advertising Standards Authority determined that the corporation had acted in breach of the codes of practice in describing how its French fries were prepared.
[44] Subsequent oversight by the courts was required to ensure that the money that was paid by McDonald's: "to use the funds for programs serving the interests of people following vegetarian dietary practices in the broadest sense."
The case was brought to court by Michael Jaafar,[48] a Detroit lawyer of Fairmax Law who filed a consumer protection class action lawsuit against McDonald's for advertising halal foods.
"[51] Trial-lawyer groups such as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and other opponents of tort reform sometimes argue that the suit was justified because of the extent of Liebeck's injuries, as the coffee in question was at a temperature too hot for human consumption which McDonald's failed to provide proper warning.
[52] On May 10, 2023, a verdict rendered by a jury found that McDonald's and a franchise holder were held responsible for the injuries sustained by Olivia Carballo, a four-year-old who suffered second-degree burns from a McNugget.
However, McDonald's merely switched factories, preferring to continue their association with OSI Group as they believe the quality of meat is higher and this was an isolated incident.
They, who were working at dawn outside the hours indicated in their contract, had contact with a beverage vending machine in poor condition, which produced an electric shock that, added to the wet floor and the lack of adequate cleaning implements, caused their death.
Arcos Dorados Holdings, McDonald's parent company in Peru and Latin America, was sued by the families of both young people for labor exploitation, safety deficiencies and negligence, as it became known that the workers had reported the machine's failures, but managers ignored that, in addition to that employees had not been trained to face an event such as an electric shock.
[59] After a fine imposed by the National Superintendency of Labor Inspection (SUNAFIL) and an out-of-court settlement with the bereaved families, which amounts exceeding $300,000, the case was archived in September 2020, although three months later the investigation was resumed.
[62] Magee v. McDonald's is a United States federal class action lawsuit begun in May 2016 in the Illinois Northern District Court, case number 1:16-cv-05652, in which Scott Magee of Metairie, Louisiana is pursuing action against McDonald's due to the company being unwilling to serve people who are visually impaired when only the drive thru lane is open.
In October 2018, McDonald's argued that the restaurant was accessible, because a blind person could obtain food "through the same UberEats delivery service that everyone else uses," even though it would cost $5.00 extra.
[65] On October 31, 2018, McDonald's filed a document with the court, arguing that because the restaurants forbid any pedestrian access to their drive-up window, they are not discriminating against the blind.
[68] On October 5, 2021, United States District Judge John F. Kness granted a summary judgement dismissing the action against McDonald's.
