McDonald’s pays $700,000 to settle suit over non-halal food
McDonalds Corp. is in hot water over its food, but the problem this time isnt calorie countsits the restaurants alleged failure to comply with Muslim dietary law, despite its advertising to the contrary.
January 22, 2013 at 06:42 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
McDonald's Corp. is in hot water over its food, but the problem this time isn't calorie counts—it's the restaurant's alleged failure to comply with Muslim dietary law, despite its advertising to the contrary.
The fast food chain advertises halal food at two of its locations near Dearborn, Mich., which is home to one of the country's largest Arab and Muslim communities. Local resident Ahmed Ahmed brought the suit against McDonald's and one of its franchise owners, Finley's Management Co., in November 2011, two months after he ordered a chicken sandwich at one of those locations and allegedly discovered that it wasn't halal.
Ahmed's lawyer claims that the restaurant sold non-halal food when it ran out of halal products. Islamic dietary requirements prohibit the consumption of pork and call for God's name to be invoked before an animal is slaughtered.
The settlement applies to any customer who bought purported halal products from the two Michigan locations between September 2005 and last Friday. But because of the difficulty of identifying these individuals, both sides have reportedly agreed to pay much of the settlement money to local charities that benefit Muslims, with about $270,000 going to a Detroit free clinic, roughly $150,000 going to the Arab American National Museum, $230,000 to lawyers and $20,000 to Ahmed.
McDonald's did not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement. Finley's Management said in a statement that it has a “carefully designed system” for preparing halal products, and that it trains its employees on that process.
Read more at the Washington Post.
For more religion-based lawsuits on InsideCounsel, see:
The fast food chain advertises halal food at two of its locations near Dearborn, Mich., which is home to one of the country's largest Arab and Muslim communities. Local resident Ahmed Ahmed brought the suit against McDonald's and one of its franchise owners, Finley's Management Co., in November 2011, two months after he ordered a chicken sandwich at one of those locations and allegedly discovered that it wasn't halal.
Ahmed's lawyer claims that the restaurant sold non-halal food when it ran out of halal products. Islamic dietary requirements prohibit the consumption of pork and call for God's name to be invoked before an animal is slaughtered.
The settlement applies to any customer who bought purported halal products from the two Michigan locations between September 2005 and last Friday. But because of the difficulty of identifying these individuals, both sides have reportedly agreed to pay much of the settlement money to local charities that benefit Muslims, with about $270,000 going to a Detroit free clinic, roughly $150,000 going to the Arab American National Museum, $230,000 to lawyers and $20,000 to Ahmed.
McDonald's did not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement. Finley's Management said in a statement that it has a “carefully designed system” for preparing halal products, and that it trains its employees on that process.
Read more at the
For more religion-based lawsuits on InsideCounsel, see:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHunter Biden Sues Fox, Ex-Chief Legal Officer Over Mock Trial Series
Judge Sides With McDonald's In Attorney-Client Privilege Dispute With Former Executives
4 minute readMarriott's $52M Data Breach Settlement Points to Emerging Trend
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250