Thank You Judge Pearson!

I'm sure you remember Judge Pearson. Judge Pearson! The one who tried to sue a drycleaning business for $67 million (later revised to $54 million) for false advertising? Needless to say the judge threw out the case and the appeals and anything else that Pearson tried to bring to the forefront. In a case of Tort gone wild, here was a classic example of someone looking too far into a statement that a business made. The drycleaning business had signs up which said, "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and Pearson had claimed he wasn't. He claimed that this was false advertising and for various reasons that have been blogged on before, he decided to sue. When details of the case came to light, the utter stupidity of the case led to its being thrown out of the court but it definitely set many businesses out there on edge.

In college I took a course in marketing as an elective. In it we discussed how businesses use their slogans to convey stability or steadfastness that should appeal to a consumer. I mean you'll rarely (if ever) here an auto manufacturer advertise the fact that their car looks elegant but drives like crap. Or that the fast food restaurant you're watching an ad for buys sub-prime ingredients. You always want to build your slogan on something that will inspire a consumer with confidence to come to your store and make a purchase. Now Wal-Mart is one company that has definitely catered to the bargain shopping crowd out there and I will admit, I have been there to get a few items in the past. On the whole though, I don't frequent the place. One thing that I can't help but notice or hear incessently in their ads is the fact that they claim, "Always Low Prices. Always." Well, I won't be hearing that for much longer.

A long standing claim on their part, Wal-Mart executives are now considering revising the slogan to "Save Money. Live Better." Now to me that seems like generic advice that is being spewed and is about as non-commital as you can get. The change comes on the heels that some people may claim false advertising against Wal-Mart for the fact that their box of diapers was actually cheaper at Target than at Wal-Mart and so, due to false advertising, they are eligible for millions of dollars. Now ordinarily I would say that this type of case would also be tossed out by any halfway decent judge, but I don't know any more.

Although Pearson's case was eventually dismissed along with his attempted appeals, it just goes to show what a tenacious person can accomplish when they set their mind to suing someone for millions. It seems as though Wal-Mart is taking some pre-emptive measures to ensure that though there may be cases against them in the future, false advertising shouldn't be one of them. Some people wonder if this is truly a concern for a company like Wal-Mart and all I can say is that it should be. I mean there was recently a case where a man purchased a bottle of Brut cologne almost three years ago and he sued Wal-Mart when the cologne caught fire. Nevermind that he was the reason the cologne caught fire or the fact that bottle warns that the cologne is highly flammable. Wal-Mart is liable because they sell such a dangerous product.

It's interesting to see just how some industries are affected by the actions of a few determined but mis-guided souls. I mean an idiot who is suing for $67 million for a $2000 suit has managed to have some small part in causing a multi-billion dollar corporation like Wal-Mart change it's long-standing slogan for fear of what someone reading between the lines may think. If you think about it, most major corporations have changed their slogans to be that way now. McDonalds claims "I'm Lovin' It" so if you're not, that's not really their fault. Technically they're lovin' it, not you. So they've got their bases covered. Hmmm. Perhaps the industrious letigious ones out there can go after Burger King. I mean after all, they claim that you can "Have It Your Way" though the last time I went there and ordered a medium rare whopper with extra pickles, it came to me medium. That's false advertising isn't it?