False Advertising?

Well it's always refreshing to hear that the legal system works and that judges out there are reasonable people. At least that's the conclusion we can make in the latest update on the case of Judge Roy Pearson and his lawsuit against the Chung family dry cleaning service. He appears to have come to his senses and has reduced his original request for $67 million compensation down to a more reasonable $54 million. His change of heart comes from the fact that he realized that perhaps $67 million was a bit excessive so he decided to reduce it but still holds the case that the Chungs violated their own advertisements in this case and that they should be held accountable. A quick recap of the case for those who came in late. Pearson was a relatively frequent visitor to the dry cleaning shop run by the Chung family. During one transaction, the judge realized that a pair of pants was missing and so demanded that the Chungs pay for the lost garment. They agreed, however a week later the Chungs found the pant and returned it to Pearson and said that they were no longer liable for the pair of pants and so shouldn't have to pay. Pearson disagreed.

Pearson informed them that he was bringing a lawsuit against them for not meeting their own claims posted in the window regarding "Same Day Service" and Satisfaction Guaranteed." Pearson said that he wasn't satisfied and that their repeated violations were prosecutable to the fullest extent of the law. When all was said and done and tallied, the total suit came to approximately $67 million. Prior to this coming to the forefront the Chungs had offered to pay for the pants in ever increasing sums. At one point they were offering Pearson thousands of dollars for a pair of pants not worth more than $200. One can argue that Pearson is attempting to make a point by saying that the claims made in signs around the Chungs business are false and therefore justify his lawsuit. I argue that if that's the case, I've got a beef with quite a few businesses out there.

Pearson is a judge and therefore should understand how this case makes him look. For him to claim that the sign constitutes false advertising is true on the one hand but a bit of a stretch on the other. I would ask you to consider the number of times you've walked into any dry cleaning business where they have not claimed 'same-day service' or your 'satisfaction' being 'guaranteed'. It's almost a staple of any such business. If you don't have those signs people are more likely to be wary than consider you to be honest in your claims. Most every such business states same-day service but there is often a disclaimer that the clothes must be brought in at a certain time or some other such caveat. That's a given and it's also something that needs to be clarified when dropping your stuff off. But if Pearson claims that this forms a legally binding case then I've got some others for the rest of us to go after.

The eye glasses company "Hour Eyes" has the word 'hour' in its title due to the claim that they will prepare your glasses in one hour. This was a similar claim to companies like LensCrafters as well. If that's the case then I should sue them for false advertising as well. Apparently the 'one hour guarantee' only holds for certain frames at certain times of day and in certain cases. If I hold them to that guarantee then I can sue them for false advertising. Okay, so there's a couple of million for us (if we are to use Pearson's rationale). Verizon Wireless claims the best service in nation in terms of widest coverage and the largest wireless network. Is that so? Then why is it that when I'm out in portions of Northern Virginia that I seem to lose my signal? Perhaps you can claim that I'm beyond normal coverage zones but then doesn't that mean that your claim of the largest wireless network is false?

The Washington Post used to claim that "if you don't get it, you don't get it" which is to say that if you don't subscribe then you won't know what's happening in the world. I don't subscribe but I think that I'm still reasonably well informed of what's happening in the world. Again, false advertising. Look at any company and any service out there and they all make claims like this; it's part of advertising and part of what makes a business work. I agree that there are times when advertisements and claims don't live up to what customers expect but that doesn't mean that we should get litigious and start suing every company out there. I haven't gotten the details on what exactly Pearson reduced in his lawsuit but it apparently wasn't something big. Maybe he reduced the number of times he felt the guarantee was violated by the company and then adjusted his end number accordingly.

I think Pearson's case is one of pure nonsense. I find it offensive as a taxpayer to think that court time is going to be spent in the prosecution of this case and that there is going to be debate. Pearson himself is a judge and should know what it will cost. He is going to be acting in his own defense and wants to make his case known. In the grand scheme of things I don't think that this will lead to a world wide revolution in advertising at dry cleaning outlets but perhaps it will bring light of the fact you should be careful what you claim. Perhaps we could sue Pearson for taking the guarantee of the Justice System to the extreme. "...And Justice for All?" I don't think so.