Woman sues when "100 Grand" prize turns out to be chocolate bar

[BMdoobieW]

Originally posted by: toekramp

Originally posted by: SouthPaW1227

Originally posted by: notfred
Didn't the exact same thing happen like a year ago?

Yep. She thought she won a Toyota. Turned out to be a $5 TOY YODA.

it was their incentive to sell more alcohol I believe...thus the owners were taking advantage of the employees... i hope she won.

edit: did some research

" David Noll, her attorney, said Wednesday that he could not disclose the settlement's details, although he said Berry can now go to a local car dealership and ``pick out whatever type of Toyota she wants.''"

Article

Found this too:

http://www.cornerbarpr.com/articles/munchies.cfm?article=70

 

[40Hands]

people can't take a joke anymore. losers. pfftt.

 

[dabuddha]

This has been done before. I remember hearing the radio bit of it awhile back. The lady who won started cursing at the DJ

EDIT: Maybe this one? I have no speakers here at work.

or this one

 

[Mucho]

I hope she wins it will help put an end to juvenile humor thats has been taking over the air waves on both side of the border.

Reminds me of Bart winning the elephant.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: jEct2
It is one sad day in america if she actually gets full 100 grand out of this dumba$$ event.

Fvck that DJ, I hope she gets the full $100k PLUS $50k more in punitive damages. To heck with breach of contract, that's false advertising. A "reasonable" person wouldn't assume he was talking about a 100 Grand candy bar. In fact, he specifically worded it to where it wouldn't make sense if he was referring to a candy bar.

 

[Kenazo]

There's a town in Manitoba called Miami. Back when the SuperBowl was in Miami a radio station gave away a trip for two to Miami to watch the SB.

 

[SKORPI0]

You've just won 100 Grand - Flash animation. :laugh:

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: BroeBo
people can't take a joke anymore. losers. pfftt.

It's not a joke, it's truth in advertising. Consumers are protected from being mislead through false advertising, wordplay, bait and switch and 1,000 other dishonest tricks. The bottom line is: If you say you're giving something away, you damn well better give it away or you're completely exposed to a law suit.

The lady with the candy bar is almost certainly going to win or the station will settle the case for a fairly large sum. They promoted a 100 Grand giveaway, the FCC doesn't take kindly to stations promising things on the radio and then not coming through. I'd much rather be her lawyer than the lawyer for the radio station, they're screwed.

 

[Eli]

hahahaha... That's awesome.

I hope she wins SQUAT.

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: Mucho
I hope she wins it will help put an end to juvenile humor thats has been taking over the air waves

QFT


if the radio stations keep losing these lawsuits ... maybe they'll learn this isn't funny

 

[isekii]

Originally posted by: BMdoobieW

Originally posted by: toekramp

Originally posted by: SouthPaW1227

Originally posted by: notfred
Didn't the exact same thing happen like a year ago?

Yep. She thought she won a Toyota. Turned out to be a $5 TOY YODA.

it was their incentive to sell more alcohol I believe...thus the owners were taking advantage of the employees... i hope she won.

edit: did some research

" David Noll, her attorney, said Wednesday that he could not disclose the settlement's details, although he said Berry can now go to a local car dealership and ``pick out whatever type of Toyota she wants.''"

Article

Found this too:

http://www.cornerbarpr.com/articles/munchies.cfm?article=70

I'd take a nice fully loaded Land Cruiser.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Mucho
I hope she wins it will help put an end to juvenile humor thats has been taking over the air waves on both side of the border.

Reminds me of Bart winning the elephant.

Stampy!
Agreed, this is a cruel trick to play on people, the weasels doing "jokes" like this should lose their jobs after their radio stations pay out a nice settlement.

 

[dighn]

lame and cruel joke :thumbsdown:
i hope she wins

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: BroeBo
people can't take a joke anymore. losers. pfftt.

It's not a joke, it's truth in advertising. Consumers are protected from being mislead through false advertising, wordplay, bait and switch and 1,000 other dishonest tricks. The bottom line is: If you say you're giving something away, you damn well better give it away or you're completely exposed to a law suit.

The lady with the candy bar is almost certainly going to win or the station will settle the case for a fairly large sum. They promoted a 100 Grand giveaway, the FCC doesn't take kindly to stations promising things on the radio and then not coming through. I'd much rather be her lawyer than the lawyer for the radio station, they're screwed.

What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
advertisements cannot be unfair.



What makes an advertisement deceptive?
According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:

is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.



How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive?

The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -to determine what it conveys to consumers.

The FTC looks at what the ad does not say - that is, if the failure to include information leaves consumers with a misimpression about the product. For example, if a company advertised a collection of books, the ad would be deceptive if it did not disclose that consumers actually would receive abridged versions of the books.





based on this... she wins, hands down

 

[KarenMarie]

Personally, I think what the radio station did was pretty sh!tty...

But the lawsuits over everything in this country are way out of hand.

Litagation is now one of the top USA career choices.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Personally, I think what the radio station did was pretty sh!tty...

But the lawsuits over everything in this country are way out of hand.

Litagation is now one of the top USA career choices.

True, but the fact that millions of people are willing to roll the dice and hope for a favorable jury to win a baseless suit doesn't mean that all suits are baseless. This suit isn't baseless. The DJ deliberately and intentionally mislead and misrepresented to try to garner amusement out of a listeners disappointment. The station is boned and the DJ better hope he's got some actual skills to earn a living because in a couple of months there's not a station in the country that's going to let him on the air.

 

[Mojoed]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
I think others have done the same at other stations if I remember correct. Can;t remember what happend?

Opie and Anthony did this about a bizzilion years ago...

Yea there is an audio clip floating around of the call. It was pretty funny actually. The guy thought it won $100,000 and flipped out saying how he was gonna buy a new truck, etc. Opie and Anthony then spilled the beans and man, this guy was pissed off beyond belief.

 

[Looney]

Good for her i say, especially if she wins. The radio station took advantage of her and others for their own amusement and ratings... so now she's going to take advantage of the system to get some money out of them. Sounds like a fair deal to me.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
It's not a joke, it's truth in advertising. Consumers are protected from being mislead through false advertising, wordplay, bait and switch and 1,000 other dishonest tricks. The bottom line is: If you say you're giving something away, you damn well better give it away or you're completely exposed to a law suit.

The lady with the candy bar is almost certainly going to win or the station will settle the case for a fairly large sum. They promoted a 100 Grand giveaway, the FCC doesn't take kindly to stations promising things on the radio and then not coming through. I'd much rather be her lawyer than the lawyer for the radio station, they're screwed.

You're 100% right. This is absolutely the most obvious and basic infringement of false advertising there is. For those of you laughing about it and saying she gets screwed, I hope you buy a car with an advertised "bumper to bumper" warranty that completely breaks down within two days. When you tow it back, they tell you that since the engine isn't between the two rubber bumpers they installed in the trunk, it's not covered.

It's false advertising. There's a reason we're protected from it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

People saying she is wrong to sue: This is nothing like the idiot who sued Pepsi when they wouldn't give him a Harrier jet for his x million Pepsi merch points.

The DJs made money for their station (advertising) by laughing at the suffering and embarassment they intentionally caused her in intentionally running a deceptive contest.

Since the law doesn't allow her to take a baseball bat and return the favor, making them pay is her only legal way to punish them.

If you still think she's wrong, think about how funny it would be if a hospital called you telling you your spouse, brother/sister, parents had died in a car crash or fire. Ha ha! April fools! (audience howls with laughter.)

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: KeyserSoze
Sorta like that H00ters waitress that won a "Toyota", but in the end it was a "Toy Yoda", from Star Wars.

She sued, not sure what happened.


EDIT: Beaten by Naked Frog.



KS

that came to my mind, too.

but really, the DJ knew what he was doing.

 

[raptor13]

Things like this really piss me off, too. That lady should not win a dime from the radio station and the judge ought to give her a good lashing about not being such a whiner and a crybaby. She got tricked, plain and simple, and others found it funny. So what?

Little Kid 1: I'll give you a dollar if you eat this bug!
Little Kid 2: <Eats bug> Gimme my dollar!
Little Kid 1: Here you go.
Little Kid 2: This isn't a dollar! It's a doll hair!
Little Kid 1: HA!

So do you ream out Kid 1? Should he be sued for falsely representing himself? No. It's utter crap that something like goes to the courts and wins. It's not like the DJ caused her to blow $100,000 of her own money on something. She didn't win $100,000 that she wouldn't have had anyway. So what? She's not any worse off than she was before. She's not entitled to that $100,000 just like I'm not entitled to anything when a buddy says, "I'll give you a million dollars to kill a lion with your bare hands." That's assuming I've gone and killed the lion, by the way.


EDIT: Isn't the better question here why laws exist to protect people from their own stupidity? If you don't understand a contract - such as the "bumper - to - bumper" example above, don't sign it! If you think you understand it and you don't, I'm sorry you're getting screwed but you've only got yourself to blame.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: raptor13
"I'll give you a million dollars to kill a lion with your bare hands." That's assuming I've gone and killed the lion, by the way.

If he said it and sounded serious about, there's a thing called Verbal Contracts that would entitle you to that million.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
You're 100% right. This is absolutely the most obvious and basic infringement of false advertising there is. For those of you laughing about it and saying she gets screwed, I hope you buy a car with an advertised "bumper to bumper" warranty that completely breaks down within two days. When you tow it back, they tell you that since the engine isn't between the two rubber bumpers they installed in the trunk, it's not covered.

It's false advertising. There's a reason we're protected from it.

Your analogy is a little different.

If I PAID for a bumper to bumper warranty and the salesperson pulled a fast one by purposely misleading me, then I would be entitled to either all my money back or for the seller to live up to the true, reasonable meaning of bumper to bumper.

But this woman did not pay to enter a contest. She has lost nothing. She took a gamble to get something for nothing and did not get the big pay off she had hoped. The station did not say there was a hundred grand prize when there was not. There was a 100 grand prize, just not the free money she had thought there was. She still got something for nothing though.

And while it is a sh!tty thing for the radio station to do... I do not think they should award this woman with anything. If the FCC wants to fine the station and give the money to charity, or make sure the promoters of this contest are fired, fine. But the caller should not tie up the legal system cause she did not get a free windfall to her expectations. And to ask Punative damages on top.... well, that is when she lost any 'hope the underdog wins' feeling from me.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: raptor13
Things like this really piss me off, too. That lady should not win a dime from the radio station and the judge ought to give her a good lashing about not being such a whiner and a crybaby. She got tricked, plain and simple, and others found it funny. So what?

Little Kid 1: I'll give you a dollar if you eat this bug!
Little Kid 2: <Eats bug> Gimme my dollar!
Little Kid 1: Here you go.
Little Kid 2: This isn't a dollar! It's a doll hair!
Little Kid 1: HA!

So do you ream out Kid 1? Should he be sued for falsely representing himself? No. It's utter crap that something like goes to the courts and wins. It's not like the DJ caused her to blow $100,000 of her own money on something. She didn't win $100,000 that she wouldn't have had anyway. So what? She's not any worse off than she was before. She's not entitled to that $100,000 just like I'm not entitled to anything when a buddy says, "I'll give you a million dollars to kill a lion with your bare hands." That's assuming I've gone and killed the lion, by the way.


EDIT: Isn't the better question here why laws exist to protect people from their own stupidity? If you don't understand a contract - such as the "bumper - to - bumper" example above, don't sign it! If you think you understand it and you don't, I'm sorry you're getting screwed but you've only got yourself to blame.

You can't tell the difference between $1 and $100,000?