Thursday, October 27, 2016

KFC


What do you think? Is this a reasonable reason to sue a company?


http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/10/24/woman-sues-kfc-for-20-million-over-false-advertising/

85 comments:

  1. False advertising is a problem when it comes it displaying a product as being healthy or lowfat when it is actually not, but not getting all of your chicken and then attempting to sue the company for forgetting a piece of chicken seems like an incredibly poor reason to sue a company.

    ReplyDelete
  2. she probably really fat from what i been reading. and i mean really dude? u gone sue kfc for 20 million over 2$ worth of chicken. all i got to say is she wild

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Health shown isnt the highest but the fact they sued for a missed count of food products ordered can be replaced or given the amount more needed, its not serious matter that causes injury and can't obviously win a court case, which honestly i feel this person may have other things going on that they just got bored or need the money.

    ReplyDelete
  4. no it is not a reasonable reason. if anything its better to eat less fried foods at the age of 64.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I feel like this isnt a reason to sue. They just wanted the money.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No not really i mean your always going to run into problems like that but it does not mean you should sue the company its just childish.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I feel like she could've simply bought some extra pieces of chicken instead of blowing the situation out of proportion. Now KFC could be in dept of 20 million dollars for something as small as false advertisement, which everyone does.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think that her reason to sue is pointless. I don't think that she would win and why is she suing for so much money when the bucket cost 20 dollars. She was being over dramatic and she should've just asked for a refund.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The fact that they sued for something as simple as chicken is completely immature. It was unnecessary and could have been handled in a different manner. In my opinion, they were probably money hungry and were just looking for a quick come up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No, there's no reason to sue. It may need attention brought to it, but the bucket was 20 dollars. It'd not that serious.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Maaaaaaaan, I would sue too. If i wanted to buy a few pieces of chicken, I would of asked for it. There is no way you're gonna tell me that it's okay to show me a bucket full of chicken and tell me this is what I'm getting for the price you're selling it for and then hand me 4 pieces of baby meat for that same price, it's very heartbreaking.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think her reason to sue is pointless. She is suing $20 million over a bucket that costed only $20. There were other ways she could have handled this like ask for a refund. She blew this way out of proportion.

    ReplyDelete
  14. According to Fox5, "A Hudson Valley woman is finger lickin’ mad at Kentucky Fried Chicken, claiming its understuffed buckets are for the birds. Anna Wurtzburger, of Hopewell Junction, says she bought a $20 bucket of chicken from KFC over the summer and was disappointed to find it looked much different than what’s in the chain’s ads.
    “I came home and said, ‘Where’s the chicken?’ I thought I was going to have a couple of meals,” she told The Post.
    “They say it feeds the whole family … They’re showing a bucket that’s overflowing with chicken,” the 64-year-old widow griped. “You get half a bucket! That’s false advertising, and it doesn’t feed the whole family. They’re small pieces!” This is such a great idea! I'm going to sue KFC next!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Her reason to sue is so pointless. False advertising happens very often and for her to think she is going to get that much chicken is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is not as reasonable reason to sue. The lady is just trying to get money.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think this lady is doing absolutely too much. this case is not that serious. she just want to try to get some money and five minutes of fame. if she wanted a bowl of chicken she could have easily went to management of KFC and they could have gave her a free bowl of "overflowing" chicken.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It says

    Access Denied

    You don't have permission to access "http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/10/24/woman-sues-kfc-for-20-million-over-false-advertising/" on this server.
    Reference #18.afdf4e17.1477572886.51f6b9c

    ReplyDelete
  19. this is not reasonable she wants money shes not gonna get

    ReplyDelete
  20. it states the following:
    Access Denied

    You don't have permission to access "http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/10/24/woman-sues-kfc-for-20-million-over-false-advertising/" on this server.
    Reference #18.afdf4e17.1477573073.5206901

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. she really doesn't know that sueing someone over chicken that really doesn't look what it shows on a commercial shows that shes in it for the money and do we have a picture for this chicken look. she might have just dropped the chicken and maybe asked for a refund and never got it and someone is going to have to take that chicken some bad luck for her.
    the chicken might look different but think did it taste the same or did it give you something. she really must be trying to hit it big but if you don't know KFC has money and what does that mean more lawyers meaning that the person who sued will only gain lost time.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anna Wurtzburger, of Hopewell Junction, says she bought a $20 bucket of chicken from KFC over the summer and was disappointed to find it looked much different than what’s in the chain’s ads.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The reason to sue is not reasonable at all. This is actually really stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I would also do the same. I would sue them because they do have false advertisement. They even fried a rat before. KFC is highly disgusting. I wouldn't recommend anyone to eat from there.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It isnt that serious to sue because they are under filling their chicken buckets. The government shouldnt take this serious at all in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't think that this would be a reason to sue a company for 20 Million US Dollars. Some people are just waiting to sue a company to get rich, so I don't think at all that this advertising was false in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Couldn't blog because it say
    Access Denied

    You don't have permission to access "http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/10/24/woman-sues-kfc-for-20-million-over-false-advertising/" on this server.
    Reference #18.afdf4e17.1477577452.536b02

    ReplyDelete
  29. False advertising is an issue when it comes to the quality of the product like how healthy the product is but being upset over a simple mistake as miscounting is not a good reason to sue KFC.

    ReplyDelete
  30. this is not reasonable to sue them

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is not a valid reason to sue.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think this lady is doing absolutely too much. This case is not that serious. she just want to try to get some money and five minutes of fame. This is not a valid reason to sue.

    ReplyDelete
  33. she is being ridiculous for trying to sue for so much money. she probably doesn't have a problem with the amount of chicken but she just found a way to sue KFC for some money cause shes broke. but if she really did have a problem with it she should have just asked for a refund max that she deserves is $25

    ReplyDelete
  34. I would also do the same. I would sue them because they do have false advertisement. They even fried a rat before. KFC is highly disgusting. I wouldn't recommend anyone to eat from there.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think that her reason to sue is pointless. I don't think that she would win and why is she suing for so much money when the bucket cost 20 dollars. She was being over dramatic and she should've just asked for a refund.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I would sue because of false advertisement, Its only right you can't just let them get away with something like that. so yess it was the rigt thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I think this lady is doing absolutely too much. this case is not that serious. she just want to try to get some money and five minutes of fame. if she wanted a bowl of chicken she could have easily went to management of KFC and they could have gave her a free bowl of "overflowing" chicken.

    ReplyDelete
  38. False advertising is a problem when it comes it displaying a product as being healthy or lowfat when it is actually not, but not getting all of your chicken and then attempting to sue the company for forgetting a piece of chicken seems like an incredibly poor reason to sue a company.

    ReplyDelete
  39. False advertising is a problem when it comes it displaying a product as being healthy or lowfat when it is actually not, but not getting all of your chicken and then attempting to sue the company for forgetting a piece of chicken seems like an incredibly poor reason to sue a company.

    ReplyDelete
  40. i mean yes, it was false advertisement. but she could simply just ask for a refund and not return to the establishment ever again. but on the other hand, if she can sue and get a lot of money from it, then hey! why not!

    ReplyDelete
  41. No, there's no reason to sue. It may need attention brought to it, but the bucket was 20 dollars. It'd not that serious.

    ReplyDelete
  42. i mean like i would be mad and try to sue them to

    ReplyDelete
  43. her excuse for being mad is reasonable but the suing part is doing too much

    ReplyDelete
  44. I can't access the article but chances are this lawsuit isn't reasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  45. the problem maybe be the simple fact that they maybe lied about bringing that product back out and it never came back out

    ReplyDelete
  46. This is not as reasonable reason to sue. The lady is just trying to get money.

    ReplyDelete
  47. that is not a reason to sue at all she should have checked her food before she left and took it back

    ReplyDelete
  48. The link to the article does not work. But considering the link name and the title of the blog, it most likely is not a reason to sue KFC. There are many companies who false advertise their food on television. The food would always look better on TV rather than in real life.

    ReplyDelete
  49. False advertising is an issue when it comes to the quality of the product like how healthy the product is but being upset over a simple mistake as miscounting is not a good reason to sue KFC.

    ReplyDelete
  50. False advertising is a problem when it comes it displaying a product as being healthy or lowfat when it is actually not, but not getting all of your chicken and then attempting to sue the company for forgetting a piece of chicken seems like an incredibly poor reason to sue a company.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I would also do the same. I would sue them because they do have false advertisement. They even fried a rat before. KFC is highly disgusting. I wouldn't recommend anyone to eat from there.

    ReplyDelete
  52. i dont even need to click on the article. the name is enough. KFC SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

    ReplyDelete
  53. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  54. WELL OF COURSE ITS NOT GONNA LOOK LIKE THE AD. ITS LIKE SAYING A MCDONALDS BURGER LOOKS LIKE THE COMMERCIAL. THIS LADY SHOULD BE MAKING BILLIONS IF SHE TALK ABOUT FAST FOOD ADS BEING FALSE.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I don't think that this would be a reason to sue a company for 20 Million US Dollars. Some people are just waiting to sue a company to get rich, so I don't think at all that this advertising was false in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  57. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  58. The Health shown isnt the highest but the fact they sued for a missed count of food products ordered can be replaced or given the amount more needed, its not serious matter that causes injury and can't obviously win a court case, which honestly i feel this person may have other things going on that they just got bored or need the money.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I feel as though this is a valid reason to sue. If you feel like its not how it was advertised then by all means go ahead. Because false advertisement is a problem .

    ReplyDelete
  60. First of all Mc'donalds does the exact same thing (false Advertising!) and they don't get sued. So why is this Woman picking on KFC! they do the exact same thing! not that still not a reason to sue the fast-food restaraunt!

    ReplyDelete
  61. i think this is not a reason to sue especially for 20 million. I think she just wanted money. she was probably willing to do anything so she did that.

    ReplyDelete
  62. False advertising is KFC fault.she is customer so that is why she would sues to KFC.but i don't think so because sometime people did false for their advantage.and that problem should not go sue by somebody.

    ReplyDelete
  63. i agree that false advertising is a problem but at the same who is the women to sue KfC. No one told her to go and eat at KFC there is amillion places to eat in the world so why chose kFC

    ReplyDelete
  64. CORRECTION MY BAD! SOMEONE DID SUE M'CDONALDS!!!

    ReplyDelete
  65. I'm sorry, but i gotta roast you. You suing a company for 20million for like a $10 thing of food. Companies false advertise all the time. Just like how youtubers use clickbait . Maybe it was just that store that didnt give you all your chicken. There is also something called a RECEIPT!!! Take yo food back .

    ReplyDelete
  66. FALSE ADVERTISING IS ILLEGAL AND A LOT OF COMPANIES DO IT AND I WANT MY MONEY BACK. THAT LADY HAD ALL RIGHTS TO SUE KFC.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I feel like this isnt a reason to sue. Some people are just waiting to sue a company to get rich, so I don't think at all that this advertising was false in.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Its not reasonable because its $25 worth of chicken and its mad unnecessary to be that extra if it wasn't full she should have got more chicken or got a refund. 2016 is so extra its turning into one big episode of family guy

    ReplyDelete
  69. I think that her decision to sue over a $20 bucket of chicken is unreasonable. I think that she wasted her money on paying for lawyers to claim her case that isn't going to fund as much as she paid just to sue. I think she should've took it up to KFC and made it a complaint. She over exaggerated and should've checked her food before she left so she could've exchanged or returned.

    ReplyDelete
  70. The fact that they sued for something as simple as chicken is completely immature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you have no place to tell her what's immature. You dont know how hungry she was.

      Delete
  71. i dont the she will get 20 million for something so minor.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I think she can go somewhere else to get a bucket that feeds her family instead of causing troubles. No she shouldn't sue KFC for their false advertisements .

    ReplyDelete
  73. Her reason to sue is so pointless. False advertising happens very often and for her to think she is going to get that much chicken is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I think this lady is doing absolutely too much. this case is not that serious. she just want to try to get some money and five minutes of fame. if she wanted a bowl of chicken she could have easily went to management of KFC.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I think this lady is doing absolutely too much. this case is not that serious. she just want to try to get some money and five minutes of fame. if she wanted a bowl of chicken she could have easily went to management of KFC.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I think this lady is doing absolutely too much. this case is not that serious. she just want to try to get some money and five minutes of fame. if she wanted a bowl of chicken she could have easily went to management of KFC.

    ReplyDelete
  77. False advertising is an issue when it comes to the quality of the product like how healthy the product is but being upset over a simple mistake as miscounting is not a good reason to sue KFC

    ReplyDelete
  78. I do not think she should have sued KFC because it was pointless, if she sued them for false advertising then that mean every restaurant or store is getting sued for the same reason. When you open a bag of chips its mostly air and a little bit of chips , would that be false advertising to? . The lady hungry behind should have just went back and got her money back or told them to put some more food in the bucket.

    ReplyDelete
  79. well first off, shes eating at KFC so clearly she needs the money. second, shes just wasting her own time and money because she wants to file a lawsuit. if she wanted an extra piece of chicken so bad, she simply could have reported the problem to management. but instead, she decided to sue a multi million dollar company over miscounted chicken which is pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I think that her reason to sue is pointless. I don't think that she would win and why is she suing for so much money when the bucket cost 20 dollars. She was being over dramatic and she should've just asked for a refund.

    ReplyDelete