Herb Washington was once the Black franchisee with the most McDonald's in the US, with 27 stores at his peak. But now Washington, who still franchises 14 stores today, is taking legal action against the fast food giant on grounds of racial discrimination. The former professional baseball player claims McDonald’s denies Black owners the opportunities offered to white franchisees, and steers them towards taking on locations in "distressed, predominantly Black" areas. Despite having faced similar allegations in the past, McDonald’s isn’t going to back down easily. The chain said that operators aren’t placed in specific locations and that Washington’s own “mismanagement” was responsible for his restaurants’ struggles.
It has yet to be seen whether Herb Washington or McDonald’s will come out victorious, but this isn't the first case of a David and Goliath story capturing the world's attention. Click or scroll through the times when the little people took on the big guys, from Wall Street to Johnson & Johnson, and find out who came out on top.
When Robert Kearns was driving his Ford Galaxie in the rain one day, he grew frustrated with the constant moving of the wiper blades as it irritated his eyes. So he invented – and went on to patent – an electronically-powered intermittent windscreen wiper, and showed it to Ford in 1963. The car manufacturer liked the idea, and wanted to introduce it into its next year's models, but later told Kearns that it was abandoning the plans. However, in 1969, Ford introduced the feature, without paying Kearns.
In 1978, Kearns took the automaker to court, claiming that it had violated the patent he held on the windscreen wiper technology. The jury agreed, deciding that Kearns was entitled to seek royalties for the sale of every car that featured his invention. Ford was ordered to pay him $6.3 million (£3.2m), which a judge later cut to $5.2 million (£2.7m). Following various appeals, in 2008 the car manufacturer eventually paid Kearns $10.2 million (£5m) to settle the case, bringing the lengthy legal battle to an end. And in a separate lawsuit on the same issue, Chrysler was ordered to pay the inventor $18.7 million (£9.4m) too.
In 1992, Hoover launched one of the most ill thought-out marketing campaigns in history. Seeking to shift a backlog of vacuum cleaners gathering dust (rather than collecting it) in its warehouses, it announced to the British public that they could get two free return flights to America by spending just £100 on a vacuum cleaner. Unsurprisingly, the company was inundated with interest, and simply couldn’t keep the deal as it was extremely unprofitable. This led to lots of disgruntled customers, and a media firestorm.
Stella Liebeck’s 1994 lawsuit against McDonald's has become the stuff of urban legend, and divided opinion in the US at the time. The 79-year-old from Albuquerque, New Mexico bought a cup of coffee from a McDonald's drive-through in 1992, but her car didn’t have cup holders. She parked up so that she could add cream and sugar to her coffee, but accidentally knocked over the cup, spilling it into her lap. She suffered third-degree burns on her thighs, buttocks and groin and had to undergo extensive skin grafts.
Liebeck initially sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 (£13.4k) to cover her medical expenses, but when it offered her $800 (£535), she decided to take the fast food chain to court. Her attorneys argued that at 82-88°C (180-190°F), the coffee was defective because it was too hot and likely to cause injury. The court found in her favour, and the judge awarded her $2.9 million (£1.9m). This was later reduced to $640,000 (£429k) in compensation and punitive damages. Both parties appealed, and later settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
Under European law, passengers whose flights are cancelled or substantially delayed are entitled to compensation of at least €250 ($380/£190). When Wallentin-Hermann approached Alitalia to claim this, it refused to pay out, claiming the defect was “extraordinary circumstances.” Rather than give up, Wallentin-Hermann took the case all the way to the European Court of Justice, which ruled in her favour and said that a technical problem on an aircraft does not count as “extraordinary”.
When LA resident Trish Wiener bought products from Dannon’s (known as Danone in Europe) Activia and DanActive yoghurt brands, which claimed to be clinically proven to help regulate digestion and boost immunity, she was disappointed to find no positive effect. So she filed a lawsuit against the company. Dannon had started marketing Activia and its “bifidus regularis” bacteria in early 2006. Yet Wiener’s lawsuit claimed Dannon’s marketing department invented the words “immunitas” and “regularis” and used them because “these names sound scientific.”
Both yoghurts sold at a 30% premium over other brands because of their claimed nutritional benefits, which meant Wiener was able to claim for an “economic injury” because she spent more money than she would have based on the company’s claims. The legal battle lasted two years, culminating in the judge’s decision that Dannon would have to pay people who'd bought the yoghurts a share of up to $45 million (£30m) in damages, in a class action settlement reached in federal court. Dannon was also required to remove the word “immunity” from its labels.
Rice Krispies might be a beloved breakfast cereal, but when a 2009 ad campaign for the cereal claimed it could boost children's immunity the state of Oregon's attorney general, as well as the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a number of private individuals, took issue with the claim, saying it wasn't backed up by scientific evidence. These lawsuits became one large class action lawsuit, which wound up in the California federal court.
Plaintiffs argued that Rice Krispies did not have evidence to support its claims, and that Kellogg's had failed to disclose any information which indicated health or immunity benefits. In 2011, Kellogg's settled for $5 million (£3.1m), of which $2.5 million (£1.5m) would be given to people who purchased its products, who could claim for between $5 to $15 (£3-£9) if they submitted forms for the price of cereal they purchased. Meanwhile the remaining $2.5 million (£1.5m) would be given to charities in the form of donated Kellogg's products. The company also removed immunity claims from its packaging in 2010.
It may have only been a difference of two cents but Bach decided to file a civil lawsuit against the supermarket giant, the fifth that she had filed against the Delmont store for misrepresenting prices on the shelves. During the case, Walmart’s lawyers claimed that she had only purchased the items so she could file yet another charge against the store. But the court sided with her, and she was awarded $100 (£61) in damages and about $80 (£49) in court costs.
Burger King removed Chicken Fries from its US menu in 2012 after seven glorious years, but diners were soon up in arms at the decision. Social media users mobilised and multiple petitions were set up on sites including Change.org calling for the return of the missing menu item. Even a specific Twitter account called @thechickenfries was created by a fan to push the campaign.
Cynthia Robinson received one of the largest individual settlements in history when she took on tobacco firm R J Reynolds. She filed the case in 2008 after her husband, Michael Johnson Sr, died of lung cancer in 1996 after smoking for more than 20 years. According to his widow, the company had deliberately concealed the true extent of the health hazards that came from smoking its cigarettes. Johnson Sr was just 36 when he died, but he had begun smoking aged 13.
Robinson first brought the case against R J Reynolds in 2008, but it wasn’t concluded until 2014. In court, she said the cigarette manufacturer had conspired to cover up the number of chemicals in its products, and how addictive they really were. The court was persuaded by her argument and handed R J Reynolds a punitive judgement of $23.6 billion (£14bn). It was also ordered to pay Robinson $17 million (£10.2m) in compensatory damages. The company tried to appeal the case in 2017, but its case was rejected.
When Benjamin Careathers saw a Red Bull advert promising that the energy drink would give him wings, he decided to put the claim to the test. After consuming the fizzy drink for 10 years and remaining firmly wingless, the American took Red Bull to court for false advertising. Careathers claimed that the manufacturers had deliberately misled purchasers, who bought the drink in the hope that it would give them a competitive edge.
The case never made it to court, as Red Bull was concerned about the bad publicity that it might bring. Instead, it settled for $6.5 million (£3.9m) with Careathers and allocated a further $6.5 million (£3.9m) to a fund to which customers who had bought Red Bull between 1 January 2002 and 3 October 2014 could apply to for a refund if they also felt they had been misled. The total compensation was supposed to work out to about $10 (£5.99) per person that had drunk Red Bull since 2002.
In 2016, Volkswagen agreed to a $14.7 billion (£11.4bn) settlement in the US when it was discovered that the company had been intentionally cheating its emissions test, of which up to $10 billion (£7.8bn) would be directly paid back to car owners through buybacks, repairs and additional compensation. But there were still other lawsuits to fight across the world. So far the company has paid out more than €31.3 billion ($36.9bn/£28.4bn), and this number is likely to grow. In June 2020 the states of Florida and Utah won an appeal against the carmaker which means it could have to pay more billion-dollar fines in these states. Meanwhile in August 2020, Volkswagen lost its appeal over a UK group action lawsuit, meaning that up to 90,000 car owners could be entitled to compensation by 2022.
When Henry Walker visited his local Phenix City branch of Walmart in June 2015, he wasn’t expecting to leave on a stretcher. The Army veteran was reaching for a watermelon in a container, but tripped and fell when his foot got stuck in a wooden pallet that had been left on the floor. He suffered several injuries, including a broken hip.
Walker sued Walmart on two claims, one of negligence, the other on wantonness, meaning that he alleged that the store should have known that the pallet might cause an injury. During the trial, the jury viewed security footage that showed several other people catching their feet on the pallet. It found in Walker’s favour on both counts, and agreed to pay him $2.5 million (£2m) in compensatory damages and $5 million (£4m) in punitive damages.
Eva Echeverria had used Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder for more than 50 years, beginning in the 1950s. In 2007, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and attributed this to her use of the talcum product. According to court documents filed in 2017, she called talcum powder “dangerous and defective” and said Johnson & Johnson had failed to adequately inform purchasers about the product’s potential cancer risk.
A 2016 study found that using talcum powder on the genital region could increase the risk of ovarian cancer by up to 33%, but other studies have found no evidence of a link. Nevertheless, when Echeverria’s case came to court, the jury found in her favour, awarding her $68 million (£52m) in compensation and $340 million (£264m) in punitive damages. She is not the first woman to have taken Johnson & Johnson to court over the issue – three other lawsuits returned similar verdicts in 2016 – and she is not the last. In 2019 Johnson & Johnson lost a case in Missouri and was ordered to pay $4.69 billion (£3.4bn) in damages, although following an appeal this was reduced to $2.12 billion (£1.5bn) in November 2020. The company also agreed a $100 million (£72.8m) bulk payout to a further 1,000 women in October last year. With around 20,000 lawsuits still outstanding, it has been estimated that it could cost Johnson & Johnson as much as $10 billion (£7.3bn) to settle the matter for good.
Jeanette Ortiz was once one of Chipotle’s most loyal staff members. The 42-year-old had worked at the Mexican food chain’s Fresno, California branch for 14 years, before she was dismissed in 2015 for allegedly stealing $636 (£490) in cash from a safe. Her bosses claimed that the theft had been recorded on video, but when she asked to see the tape they claimed it had been destroyed. So she sued Chipotle for wrongful dismissal.
In court, Ortiz’s lawyers claimed that the allegation was ridiculous, because she was making $70,000 (£53,800) a year as a general manager, and was being considered for a promotion that would have earned her an extra $30,000 (£23,000) annually, so she had no need to steal a few hundred dollars. The jury found in her favour and Chipotle was ordered to pay Ortiz $7.9 million (£6.1m) for loss of past and future wages and emotional distress, plus an additional undisclosed sum of punitive damages.
In 2015, Spotify was hit by two lawsuits from disgruntled artists. One came from David Lowery (pictured, right), frontman of the US bands Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker, while the other came from Melissa Ferrick, an American singer-songwriter. Both artists, whose suits were initially separate but later combined, claimed that the streaming service had not properly fulfilled payment per compulsory licences of their tracks. The combined class action lawsuits ended up representing a collective of musicians.
In a statement, Jonathan Prince, Spotify's global head of communications, said: "Unfortunately, especially in the United States, the data necessary to confirm the appropriate rightsholders is often missing, wrong, or incomplete”. In 2018, Spotify and the musicians came to a proposed settlement of more than $112.55 million (£87.6m), of which $43.4 million (£33.9m) would be paid out to artists immediately. The streaming giant also committed to pay ongoing royalties. More recently rapper Eminem started legal action in August 2019 for unlicensed streaming by Spotify claiming millions in damages, and in November 2019 an independent music company filed 10 copyright claims against the streaming service.
In February 2018, following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in South Florida, people started to put pressure on big-name companies to sever ties with the National Rifle Association (NRA). They included car rental agency Alamo, which had a partnership with the NRA to provide its members with car hire discounts.
People power won this time, and Alamo, as well as fellow car rental companies Enterprise Rent-A-Car and National Car Rental, stopped offering discounts to NRA members. The First National Bank of Omaha, America's largest privately-owned bank, also announced that it was going to stop producing credit cards for the NRA.
Businessman Pat McDonagh is the owner of the largest Irish fast food chain in Ireland, Supermac’s. Despite this, it’s tiny compared to the global giant that is McDonald’s, with 36,000 restaurants worldwide and a business valued at $165 billion (£128bn). So when McDonald’s filed a lawsuit against Supermac’s back in 2015, claiming that the chain's name and some menu items with the name “mac” in them infringed on its Big Mac trademark, things didn’t look good for the small-fry Irish business.
Yet in 2017 Supermac’s hit back, saying that protections around the 'Big Mac' trademark should be withdrawn. In January 2019, the European Union Intellectual Property Office made a judgement that McDonald’s had not sufficiently proved genuine use of the “Mac” trademark, either as a burger or restaurant name. In a classic case of “use it or lose it”, this means McDonald’s has to relinquish its “Big Mac” trademark in Europe. And this ruling would allow Supermac’s to expand into the UK and Europe, making it a big win for a small business. It's not the first time McDonald's has contested use of its 'Mc' or 'Mac'. In 2009 it lost out against a Malaysian fast food chain called McCurry following an eight-year court battle after it was decided the food was so distinct that no one would ever confuse the two. However, McDonald's was successful when it challenged a San Francisco coffee chain called McCoffee and MacJoy in the Philippines.
As if 2021 wasn't strange enough, this January a group of social media users on Reddit and in the Robinhood Stock Traders Facebook group managed to send shockwaves through the world of investment. They targeted sinking video games retailer GameStop, coordinating to buy shares in the business in order to hit Wall Street hedge funds that had bet on Gamestop failing. In fact, GameStop was the most "shorted" stock on Wall Street, a process where the hedge funds borrow and sell shares in order to profit if the business goes under. And so, within a week, GameStop went from the brink of bankruptcy to seeing its share price up by more than 300%.
Using low-cost trading platforms including Robinhood, Reddit investors jumped onto the stock, causing a "short squeeze", essentially driving the price of the stock up and forcing hedge funders to buy it back to fulfill their obligations, which pushes its price up even further. One hedge fund, Melvin Capital, had taken out a big shorting position on GameStop and had to be bailed out to the tune of more than $2 billion (£1.46bn) to cover its losses. In response, on 28 January trading apps Robinhood and Trading 212 put blocks on trading, which caused GameStop stock to fall by 44% and infuriated new investors (although the stock recovered again in out of hours trading), while Facebook has taken down the Robinhood Stock Traders group. But this month there has been a second surge in GameStop shares, with their US-listed shares soaring by 104% on Wednesday 24 February, even though there is no clear indication on Reddit as to why. However, some commentators noted that at the time of the surge activist investor Ryan Cohen tweeted a picture of a McDonald's ice cream cone alongside a frog emoji, which due to its timing many thought might signify something.
Now read: What Americans are spending their stimulus checks on