$20M?! sounds like finger-lickin’ grift!
This woman demanded $20 million in damages — just because her bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken wasn’t filled to the rim.
Anna Wurtzburger of upstate Hopewell Junction said a $20, eight-piece “fill-up” bucket she bought in 2016 looked nothing like the fast-food giant’s ads.
“They’re showing a bucket that’s overflowing with chicken,” the retired correction officer griped to The Post at the time.
“You get half a bucket! That’s false advertising, and it doesn’t feed the whole family. They’re small pieces!”
When Wurtzburger complained to the company, representatives of the late Colonel Sanders sent her a pair of gift certificates.
But rather than redeem them for more finger-lickin’ good chicken, Wurtzburger hired a lawyer and filed a class-action suit in Manhattan federal court.
She accused KFC of misleading fried-chicken lovers across the country into believing that its buckets were filled to the top, in violation of New York consumer protection laws.
Her suit also cited a federal regulation that bars “nonfunctional slack-fill” — which is legalese for empty space in a food container.
But Judge Nelson Roman tossed the case last year, ruling that putting Wurtzburger’s chicken in a “larger than necessary bucket” wasn’t illegal.
“Especially when the consumer ordered, purchased, and received the precise number of items requested,’ the judge ruled in his dismissal.
He was wheeling and dealing vs. 50 stores
Arik Matatov turned the Americans with Disabilities Act into his own cottage industry, using a wheelchair to shakedown merchants with the threat of a lawsuit.
Problem is, he can walk on his own.
As revealed by The Post, the Queens man filed suit against 50 Manhattan stores, claiming they violated his rights as a wheelchair user by not having a sidewalk ramp so he could roll his way up to the front door.
His Manhattan Supreme Court targets included such trendy Soho shops as Christian Dior and the Karen Willis Holmes bridal salon.
In July, Matatov’s lawyer, Jeffrey Neiman, said his unemployed client was “looking to have access to places,” adding: “He likes to browse.”
But The Post found Matatov able to walk on his own two feet when he came to the door of his Rego Park apartment — and quickly backed up upon being greeted by a reporter.
He later walked about 40 feet to a pal’s Lexus for a ride to a local Jewish community center.
Matatov wouldn’t comment, but Neiman expressed shock, saying, “I don’t do those things, fake lawsuits, I’m not into it.”
In response to The Post’s expose, some of the businesses sued by Matatov filed court papers accusing him of fraud.
He also dropped a pair of $5 million claims against Dior and luxury Soho boutique Herno.
But one of his targets, the Asia Market grocery store in Gramercy, closed its doors in August, with owner Naomi Kwong telling the Town & Village weekly newspaper that Matatov’s suit was a factor in the decision.
It’s not all greek to the courts (or is it?)
The makers of Chobani yogurt spent more than two years in court, forced to defend against allegations that “America’s number one Greek yogurt” is mis-labeled — because its founder is from Turkey.
In a 2014 class-action suit, Barry Stoltz and Allan Chang claimed they were duped into paying a “premium price” for containers of Chobani in part because they were led to believe the creamy dairy product was “Greek in origin.”
“The name of the brand itself is not Greek. ‘Chobani’ is derived from the Turkish language, where ‘coban’ means ‘shepherd,’ ” their Brooklyn federal court filing said.
“Chobani’s founder and CEO is not Greek. He is a native of Turkey who moved to New York and opened his yogurt plant in Central New York. Further, the Products sold in the US are not manufactured in Greece but solely within the US.”
The suit also noted that the straining process used to make Chobani “is not unique to Greece.”
“Several other nations in the Middle Eastern region have been attributed with being the place of origin of the strained yogurt method, including Turkey, Lebanon and Syria,” court papers said.
The case, which also alleged that a zero-percent mark to denote fat content on Chobani labels misled consumers into thinking it was also sugar-free, eventually grew to include 18 other plaintiffs who sought a share of unspecified damages on grounds including negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.
The court docket shows it took 54 legal filings for the case to settle on undisclosed terms in November 2016.
Source: Read Full Article