HERSHEY, Pa. (CBS) – A Florida woman is upset about the lack of designs on Reese’s holiday-themed peanut butter candy - and now she’s taking parent company Hershey to court over it.
Cynthia Kelly filed a federal class-action lawsuit Thursday in the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Florida, alleging several Reese’s products don’t match their photos as depicted on the wrappers.
For example, Reese’s peanut butter pumpkins are merely pumpkin-shaped hunks of peanut-butter-stuffed chocolate, and the actual product has no Jack O’lantern-style carvings as the wrapper depicts, Kelly alleges.
You know what? Fuck 'em. I don’t know what she was expecting other than chalky, chocolate-scented paste that only vaguely resembles the already cheerless designs on the packaging. But if she wants to wring some money out of the behemoth that’s hoovering up cocoa beans from half of Africa for pennies, grown by people who’ve never tasted chocolate in their lives, and use it to buy herself a boat, I say go for it. Fuck 'em up, petty chocolate woman. From the photos it kind of looks like you have a point.
Her argument is that they aren’t the same as the packaging. The Halloween shapes show a jack o lantern or a face on a bat. Open the candy, it’s not there. The lawsuit is to stop printing the packages with faces that aren’t on the candy.
Oh, I agree, it looks from the photos like she’s got a point. Without knowing much more than the photos in her filing, my first reaction is that she should get paid for a couple different reasons. I’m just saying Hershey’s is overall so shitty that the lies on the packaging should be the least of her worries about it.
The only thing this results in is cost passed on to consumers and more anal packaging caveats.
- Don’t blatantly lie
Sure, Hershey’s broke the one rule of advertising, but god forbid we do anything about it, right? What ever would the consumer do without the bare necessity that is… weirdly-shaped Reese’s cups?
I say this as someone who loves Reese’s, too. A reckoning in marketing law is long overdue. IMO it shouldn’t be legal to use anything other than unadulterated photos of your product as it appears off the production line.
I mean all they have to do is write “serving suggestion” on the front. It’s how the various oodles of noodles companies get away with showing meat and vegetables on the packages of their carbohydrate and salt rations.
I don’t think that would fly. Sure you can make a “serving suggestion” picture of spaghetti with some photogenic sauce and on a box of spaghetti that’s perfectly adequate but if you put the same picture on a pack of Farfalle you deserve to be in trouble. Who the hell ever wants Farfalle they cook unevenly.
“Serving suggestion” is “product and other stuff”, not “random shit”.
How do you feel about the bite taken out of it to reveal the peanut butter inside?
Someone needs to take a bite out of all of them, so they’re true to the picture
I would say that is more of a verb than a noun. It islike shoes that show a person running.
False. If the company could jack up prices they already would have, and it would be extra profits.
are you saying we should not enforce consumer laws in order to keep prices down?
No. I’m saying don’t celebrate this as some potential win for consumers.
Why not? Wanting accurate photos on my products, while outsourcing a big chunk of monitoring and enforcement to private individuals and providing them an incentive if they do a good job at it, is a bad thing now?
Punishing any company for bad behavior can, in some theoretical sense, get “passed on to consumers.” I’m having trouble seeing how that makes it a bad thing. In practice, I think the cost is much more likely to get passed on to the shareholders, since Hershey’s is already selling their little turd bars for whatever price maximizes their undeserved profits.
Oh you’re actually serious
Didnt say it was a bad thing. I said it’s not a win for consumers.
In what world is accurate product description enforced by law not a win for consumers?
Accurate product description enforced by law is a win for consumers. This lady suing for $5 million because the face wasn’t on the chocolate is not a win for consumers. She’s engaging in the same opportunistic behaviour that we so often condemn corporations for doing. The penalty being sought is not in line with the harm suffered. If the judge doesnt throw it out, and for some reason that amount, is decided, none of the corporate management will lose a dime of their fat salaries, bonuses, or golden parachutes. If anyone suffers at all it would be the lower employees getting lower raises or bonuses, or the public upon which the cost will be levied. Holding corporations to account for their advertising and actions is a good and necessary thing. But in this particular case, it wont be a big win for anyone and should be construed as such.
They’d be advertising how their packaging is the best because it’s made from asbestos if we had consumer protection laws that didn’t allow these pririvate lawsuits.
The only thing this results in is … more anal …
Well, I’m sold.
IANAL but…
I hate this “don’t bite the hand that feeds” attitude of capitalism. Everyone waxes poetic about the free market and then when a company gets their comeuppance there’s all this “nooo they will punish the consumers” crying.
Well which is it? Does a free market exist or do consumers have no power?
Yes.
Oh no… who cares.
Your free market ideology will make consumers move and buy from a better brand.
Oh no, junk food will be more expensive and people might buy less of it. That would be the worst
At some point we have to fight back on all the lies, why not here I guess.
I had to look up the egg/football in question:
https://www.hersheyland.com/products/reeses-milk-chocolate-peanut-butter-football-1-2-oz.html
Yeah, I could see someone being upset. Imagine planning a Super Bowl party and putting out a platter of egg shaped things instead of little footballs.
A reply from the review section a year ago…
REESE’S · Consumer Relations · a year ago
We are so sorry you’re disappointed that the football candies didn’t have the laces as shown on the wrapper. Your comments will be forwarded along to our Marketing Department.
so just a corporate non-answer, great.
Do you think a better answer was deserved?
Wow, yeah, even the “out of package” picture shows the design
This sites blocked outside the US.
I GUESS it makes sense if Hershey doesn’t sell directly outside the US, so here you go!
Everything about this is wrong.
Lies! I’m in Canada (which is definitely not inside the US) and it works fine.
Canada (which is definitely not inside the US)
Sorry you’re finding out like this /s
I’m in the UK. I think US news sites block EU residents because of GDPR requiring cookie notices. They’d rather just block access than add a line of code to show a cookie notice.
Probably! I’m just being a pedantic Canadian, annoyed that we keep getting lumped in with the US.
Yeah there is one picture on the wrapper and it doesn’t accurately represent the product. A small thing perhaps but it would be great to start calling out a lot of this trickery or carelessness.
If you’re a Jets fan, these can just be the horseshit from their playbook instead 😏
deleted by creator
Terrible first world problem if you ask me.
I definitely agree that this particular “problem” hardly negatively affects anyone, but I’m always glad to see false advertising cases. There should be strict standards across the board when it comes to deceiving customers, even on things like food presentation
Presentation? Nah. Contentand amount sure. But the way a food looks has nothing to do with what it tastes like and it’s nutritional content. This right here is idiotic. I never expect chocolate to have the design found on the foil.
Sure it does. When coffee was dyed darker, people thought it tasted more bitter.
The way food looks absolutely affects how it tastes like
Problems should be solved. I don’t understand the sentiment. You aren’t being asked to do anything.
There are lawyers that make their whole living taking big companies to court for petty stuff like this. Honestly, to me, it’s perfect. Lawyers get paid, companies have to be honest in how they present their product, and all the rest of us get to move on with our lives without having to care.
To me this solution is so much better than either “the government has an agency that inspects everyone’s packaging to make sure it’s honest” and “no one cares, put whatever you want on the packaging” that I’m having a hard time seeing what the down side is.
For all the pain and misery the chocolate industry is responsible for, we should take what we can get under our system when we can.
I would sue Hershey’s for selling vomit chocolate, this stuff is shockingly bad.
The miniature peanut butter cups from trader Joe’s, however, are perfect.
When they came out they had both milk and dark chocolate variations. Its nice to see the dark side win one.
That has something to do with the way that milk and chocolate is processed - in some markets they still have their delicious original taste. But its a agamble though, and nothing ruins my day as much as biting down on a much awaited hersheys kiss after a long day and almost-barfing
It’s the addition of butyric acid during production to lengthen shelf life.
That has something to do with the way that milk and chocolate is processed
I’m pretty sure it’s just that it’s mostly sugar (low cocoa %). At least the higher % stuff (like special dark) tastes much better to me. With holiday versions it might have more chocolate than the basic cups (or maybe even just lower cocoa % particularly for easter).
In other countries they have actual standards for cocoa %.
Butyric acid is a compound found in milk products and is also present in rancid butter and vomit, which is why it might evoke a “sick” taste association. Some American chocolate manufacturers add butyric acid during production to give the chocolate a longer shelf life.
It’s a self serving idea, because they know that chocolate with butyric acid added in is going to be sitting on the shelves a loooong time.
Interesting little factoid I learned after we got dogs. While still not good for them, most American chocolate like Hershey’s is not as toxic as most people think it is for dogs.
This is because of the low cacao content, it’s a lot of fat and sugar but not a lot of cacao which is really toxic part of chocolate for dogs.
So… they’ll just get diabetes?
No, but the sugar is not good for dogs either.
The United States requires a lesser percentage cacao in their chocolates, ten percent to be exact, while in Europe anything considered “chocolate” is twenty percent or higher. Less cacao means less theobromine (and caffeine) which is the chemical in chocolate toxic to dogs.
This. When I went to the USA I tried one of those, as through media I had the idea that it was the best chocolate America had.
I took one but and then threw the rest in the trash where it belongs. Absolutely filthy stuff.
I’m really curious what media could have possibly led you to that conclusion.
Hershey’s features a lot in American tv and movies and as such is a known brand that was not available over here. That way you get curious.
Ubiquitous does not “best”, very often it is not the case.
Yuck. No, it’s certainly not our best. It’s the bargain bin stuff that manages to push the most volume and marketing. You see it a lot around the holidays, but not too much besides.
Ghirardelli might be our best of the large brands, though it’s now owned by Lindt.
We of course have a ton of smaller brands with higher quality too.
Any of the mars chocolates are streets beyond any of the spoiled milk Hershey’s even.
Lindt makes basic-ass chocolate for premium prices, I’m quite sure you have better chocolate producers but as everywhere else they’re quite low-volume and you won’t find them in supermarkets. Also be prepared to pay up to 10 bucks per 50g, but it’ll be worth it – like once every couple of years, as a gift, etc.
If you have an Aldi close by try Moser-Roth, they’re approximately Lindt quality at prices actually reflecting the quality of cocoa in it.
It’s quite well known though, so the marketing works.
Upset the jack-o-lantern Reese’s isn’t carved is dumb, but it is true the false advertising is bad. Been known for years Hershey’s designs on the wrapper were more than a best case scenario for what you were buying.
that’s pretty much the case with anything in the u.s. when was the last time you got a big mac or a whopper or an arbys that looked like the picture on the menu board or in adverts on tv?
At least those are hand assembled, giving some excuse for it not being perfectly as pictured. But a molded piece of chocolate has no such excuse.
i tried to make an arbys look like the picture. it required accordion-folding all the meat on the front one-third of the bun, leaving the rest empty. and it still wasn’t ‘piled high’ enough.
If you watch behind the scenes footage for food ads you’d see people doing the exact same thing you’re doing. Such gussying up should be illegal
I want a law that says all food must be advertised with random samples pulled from real restaurants.
Like… You apply for an ad shoot permit, and a state inspector secret shoppers you four units from the area. You have to take photos as-is, no makeup or reconstructing.
I’d vote for you in a heartbeat.
Make burgers frumpy again!
Never, because I would get big macs without mac sauce.
That said, these are clearly marketed as being halloween-themed candy.
If you can’t tell it’s halloween-themed on the product but you can on the packaging, then it’s misleading as fuck.
Just to play devils advocate, my BigMacs do actually resemble the pictures lately.
Good point, someone sue them. I’m actually serious, the final product should at least resemble the ad
Honestly no matter how small the issue we should be bringing it to their door step like this. You have to start somewhere and take small victories as they come. It’s the only chance we have at effecting them at this point.
Looks like she bought the “ready-to-carve” version.
deleted by creator
Peanuts are an important part of their business model though
I feel no lawyer is taking this case pro bono, so this person is paying attorney fees and hourly billing to do this. How much must this absurdity cost? Some lawyer is just like “cool. Easy, stupid money.”
Like… can a lawyer weigh in on this? If I bring this to you and tell you I’m adamant about filing the suit, how much is this process so far going to run me?
This was filed as a class action, with the class being all Floridians that purchased these. If you’re at all familiar with class action lawsuits, they hugely benefit the lawyers, minimally benefit the named plaintiff, and barely provide anything to the class at large.
So an attorney may take it, assuming the believe they can get the class certified. I don’t do that type of work, so I don’t know too much about it.
Also, contingency cases are possible against large companies based on nuisance value, essentially it’s cheaper to pay you $15k to go away then to litigate for a large company.
I think I’ve been among the “winners” of three, maybe four class action lawsuits. I think I’m up something like $17.
Interesting. Thanks for the information.
Actually, now that I think about it, these chocolates ARE frustrating me… 🤣
They also don’t have a bite out of them
Mitch Hedberg would like to sign up.
Look up his KitKat joke. 😀
Next, Karen is gonna sue McDonalds because the Happy Meals don’t bring her joy
She should order the Sad Meal.
That’s every meal there.
Yeah, I’d like the McBitch’n combo with a large Cunty fries and Sour Grapes to drink… better known as the Karen.
Honestly I can’t imagine that some ambulance chasing “lawyer” has gone after a “sad following my Happy Meal” lawsuit. That sounds like a free payday in today’s world.
Yeah! Stupid Karen! Holding capitalists accountable for their shoddy falsely advertised products! What a waste of time, trying to get a court to enforce laws! HA!
Are people honestly upset about junk food they only see outside of the wrapper for maybe a second or two before consuming it?
Some people’s lives are far too easy to have this much time to waste.
I’m upset whenever a corporation is allowed to lie about a product for years without repercussions. I don’t care if it’s a trivial product like this or a clearly unsafe product like cigarettes or anything else. It doesn’t matter why the consumer consumes the product. It matters that the corporation was allowed to lie.
What’s the lie? The product is sold and marketed as being the shape of pumpkins, bats, etc. Not that they are carved.
When I look at the package, I’m under the impression that you could carve the faces out yourself, if you wanteded.
But more realistically, the faces are there to give kids some idea of what the shapes represent. It sets their imagination free.
Product images are never representative of what’s in the package, or do people also expect that a bite will already be taken from one when they purchase it, too?
The texture, color, scale and shape may be different from what you’re seeing on the package. They are sometimes close, but often not.
This is also very common with fast food and packaged goods. Hell, even the beautiful bananas and apples I see in grocery store flyers are bruised and damaged in the store. Who you gonna sue?
If a bread company promoted their toast bread by having PB&J in the shape of a smiley face on the package, or the bread was walking and talking in their commercial, is someone honestly going to expect that?
Marketing is marketing. The appearance of food is rarely ever what you actually get. And sometimes, imagination is required.
At most, Resses will remove the faces from the package and will be forced to refund uneaten portions. I don’t think it’s worth the effort, but she can try.
If they do end up losing, I wonder what prescience it sets for other food images.
What’s the point of giving a huge, extremely powerful corporation even more leeway to exaggerate the quality of their products?
If they do end up losing, I wonder what prescience it sets for other food images.
Hopefully, like, the standard that the images on the packaging are reflective of the actual product, or severely labeled as exaggerations with a real description included elsewhere?
What’s the point of giving a huge, extremely powerful corporation even more leeway to exaggerate the quality of their products?
Maybe the point is that people need to stop being so naive about what they expect food products to look like.
There was no claim made that the candy sold was anything more than candy in the shape of Halloween items.
Hopefully, like, the standard that the images on the packaging are reflective of the actual product, or severely labeled as exaggerations with a real description included elsewhere?
The latter is probably the most they’d be forced to do, since 99% of the problem here is that people have extremely unrealistic expectations.
Product packages, from the supermodels they showcase to the highly polished representations of the products have always been exaggerated and simulated to some degree. When did people lose all common sense believing they were getting the most ideal version if the item they were purchasing?
The law only requires that the product is what it says is being sold: ie. you don’t get apples if the package says oranges.
But if the photos show beautiful, bright oranges, and you get a few that are underripe and green looking, what complaint can be made? You can ask for a refund at the store, but you’d be an idiot if you thought suing Sunkist was reasonable.
I think a Karen was upset, realized there were other Karens who also have unreasonable expectations, and they decided to try for a lawsuit.
As much as I can’t stand corporations, especially ones profiting off the suffering of cows, I don’t see any legitimate complaint here.
Okay, I agree it is “common sense” that advertisements are not usually indicative of reality. But it is only “common sense” because we have a culture where people are allowed to sell products using misleading advertising.
Honestly, I think advertisements as they exist in our culture mainly prey on our evolutionary biases. They exploit our drives that were originally designed to help us survive. The fact they are misleading is the point, in order to increase profits. Frankly, I don’t think advertisements as they exist today are ethical at all, and I’d root for any party that wants to push to change that culture.
At what point would you draw the line of acceptability? Is it fine to advertise a fluffy loaf of delicious sourdough, and the product is a literal brick of hard tack? Is it fine to advertise a pair of denim jeans and receive polyester jeggings?
This is especially true when you must pay for the product before examining its contents. Sure, if your mesh bag of oranges at the store doesn’t look like the label, maybe you’re right that you should be fine with whatever you get, given that you can look at the product before purchasing. But what if you spent money buying a bespoke gift box of heirloom oranges as a present for a family member and they got a taped together amazon box with some green and half rotten oranges it in?
The promise of quality is part of the product. We could improve people’s lives substantially by requiring realitistic advertising. It’s learned helplessness to just accept the shit-cake because “well, you were stupid for expecting better”.
I do agree, especially the point that today’s advertising is unethical. I try to avoid marketing, and I shop based on unit price and never the photo on the box.
Current consumer laws do protect against certain forms of bad business practice.
If you’re sold apples, you shouldn’t be getting oranges. You should also have the expectation that what you are purchasing actually works and isn’t defective.
But so much of marketing portrays ideals or intangibles, so it’s hard to have laws protecting against it.
You buy hair color, expecting that it will make you beautiful, but that’s not reality. A lot goes into hair styling, and even the color you chose has to match your face, and your face has to be decent if you expect to look “beautiful”.
In marketing, products are all designed to make you stronger, more beautiful, faster, jump higher, “look cool”, be desirable to the opposite sex, be better in bed, have pro-level skills, etc. This is partly why ads can be so harmful to mental health: you are always inadequate unless you have their product.
At the end of the day, my advice to anyone is to avoid any and all forms of ads and marketing (if possible), and to be skeptical of what the package says/shows. Use a stores refund policy whenever you received something you weren’t expecting, and spend money based on your needs and not imaginary ideals.
Shit, they should just put some sugar, cocoa powder and peanut butter in little packets and make you make the cups yourself. Really would set your imagination free
I wonder how many people feel lied to when they buy a package of muffin mix, with a complete muffin on the photo, only to find out that they do have to make it themselves. 😒
They are marketed as carved.
Are they marketed as having a bite in them, too?
They are marketed as shaped, not carved. Even their website only makes mention of shape.
That picture is from their website. The bite is a common method of showing the interior of a food used very broadly. The other cutouts are unique to reeses. The York peppermint patties on the same website shaped like pumpkins dont possess those markings.
Right, the bites are on the photos, but one shouldn’t expect those in the package. Just like the carvings.
As I eluded to earlier, it’s possible that the faces were put there so that young children could better visualize what the shapes represent, but Reese makes no claims that they would be on the actually candy. And how could they be without becoming a crumby mess inside the package?
If it’s misleading packaging then it is against the law.
Why are you upset that they’re upset?
I’m not upset at all. I find this hilarious.
Sure bud.
