Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a highly publicized 1994 product liability lawsuit in the United States against the McDonald's restaurant chain. [1]
Also known as the "McDonald's coffee case", Liebeck v. McDonald's is a well-known product liability lawsuit that became a flash point in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.9 million to Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, who sued McDonald's after she suffered third-degree burns from hot ...
A PETA activist dressed as a chicken confronts the manager of the Times Square McDonald's over the company's animal welfare standards.. The American restaurant chain McDonald's has been criticised for numerous aspects of its business, including the health effects of its products, its treatment of employees, the environmental impact of its operations, and other business practices.
(Reuters) - McDonald's Corp has lost its rights to the trademark "Big Mac" in a European Union case ruling in favour of Ireland-based fast-food chain Supermac's, a decision from the EU's Spain ...
The following video is part of our "Motley Fool Conversations" series, in which consumer-goods editor and analyst Austin Smith discusses topics around the investing world.With McDonald's trading ...
HBO's documentary series "McMillion$" details the Monopoly scandal that afflicted McDonald's in the 1990s. CEO at the time of the scandal Ed Rensi provided an inside look at the fraud.
The signs for McDonald's have been altered in a way that the full name 'McDonald's' is visible during the day, but at night, it appears as 'McDonal'. [1] Donken Golden Gull Gyllene Måsen Sweden Using the first syllable as a basis for a nickname would be confusing in Swedish, as "mack" means gas/petrol station.
Almost all of London Greenpeace's resources and efforts went to helping the pair over the years the case was heard, but in 1997 both defendants lost and were ordered to pay McDonald's £60,000. However, the extended court battle was a public relations failure for McDonald's; the company decided not to pursue the two defendants for the money.