Commentary: McDonald's complaints a supersized combo of pointlessness

Listen to this article

The other day, I learned that some racketeers, who go by the misnomer Center for Science in the Public Interest, are threatening to sue the McDonald’s Corporation unless it immediately stops using toys to market Happy Meals.

Normally, when I read something like that, I: (1) verify it is real, and not some satire piece from the Onion; (2) shake my head in disgust upon discovering these people are serious; and (3) go about my business.

But I have to write about this one, because I’m something of an expert on Happy Meals.

You see, back in the ‘90s, I represented an armed robber who was part of a duo the media dubbed “The Happy Meal burglars.” (I know, it doesn’t make sense, but mainstream media morons don’t know the difference between robbery and burglary).

For the record, he was actually a very nice young man. But despite that, my client and his accomplice would go into a McDonald’s and force the employees to give them all the money from the registers. In addition to the cash, my client’s accomplice would also force some selected employee to “Give me a Happy Meal for my girl.”

I just figured it was some gangster thing he got from a rap song, but thanks to the nice people from Jackboots for Junk Science, I now know better. Happy Meals are evil; and McDonald’s advertising insidiously programs children to crave these things.

I now believe that my client would never have been convicted, if only I had mounted a defense based on the argument that McDonald’s advertising made him hold up restaurants for Happy Meals.

Just consider the allegations in the shakedown letter sent to McDonald’s: “By advertising that Happy Meals include toys, McDonald’s unfairly and deceptively markets directly to children. When McDonald’s bombards children with advertisements or other marketing for Happy Meals with toys, many children will pester their parents to take them to McDonald’s.”

They should have added, “And some adults will even hold up restaurants at gunpoint to get Happy Meals with toys for their girls.”

The Thugs Against Tasty Edibles also claim, “McDonald’s practice of dangling toys in front of children is illegal, regardless of what meal the child eventually gets. [I]t imprints on developing minds brand loyalty for McDonald’s. Because most of the company’s options (for young children and others) are of poor nutritional quality, eating Happy Meals promotes eating habits that are virtually assured to undermine children’s health.”

I should note, at this time, that my client’s co-conspirator in the Happy Meal robberies was killed during a confrontation with an armed customer in the final Happy Meal robbery.

In light of that, I think the extortion letter should have added, “Stealing Happy Meals at gunpoint is a habit virtually assured to undermine health.”

There were many fascinating legal issues involved in defending that client. He was arrested in Minnesota, and the arrest violated Minnesota search and seizure law. Unfortunately, what the officers did was legal under U.S. and Wisconsin law, so I couldn’t get any evidence suppressed as a result.

Also at issue was whether the arrest warrant omitted material information, in violation of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

But, now, I realize, I failed to make what would have been the best suppression motion of all. Since they arrested my client in Minnesota, and had to transport him all the way back to Milwaukee, they had to buy him some food along the way.

What do you suppose they bought for him? That’s right: “insidious,” “nutritionally poor,” “life-threatening,” “unhealthy,” and “inherently deceptive” McDonald’s food.

According to the Fascists Against Affordable Food Choices, “Once [at McDonald’s, children] are more than likely to receive a meal that is too high in calories, saturated fat, added sugars, and sodium, and devoid of whole grains.”

Surely, there must have been some evidence I could have gotten suppressed after the officers subjected my client to that kind of horrific torture.