Class Actions

Plaintiff Aghast That Her Peanut Butter Pumpkins HAD NO EYES

One can hardly bear to look upon it

Sometimes a lawsuit mocks itself and there’s really nothing I need to do to help. I guess that was probably true of all these, and these too, and probably also these, but I went ahead and helped anyway. But this one really does seem to speak for itself. And what it says is stupid.

Well, that is indeed terrifying, and certainly more than sufficient justification to file a class-action lawsuit in federal court on behalf of plaintiff Cynthia Kelly and “all other similarly situated individuals who purchased a Reese’s Peanut Butter product [that didn’t have a little piece carved out of it] based on false and deceptive advertising.”

Kelly’s lawyer, Anthony Russo of Delray Beach, Florida, describes what is missing from these and similar items as “explicit carved out artistic designs,” although I don’t think “explicit” is the word he’s looking for there. At least, none of the other examples in the complaint involved any designs I would consider explicit. But not all the offending products are pictured.

The complaint informs us that this monumental fraud on the American people involved “the following products: Reese’s Peanut Butter Pumpkins, Reese’s White Pumpkins, Reese’s Pieces Pumpkins, Reese’s Peanut Butter Ghost, Reese’s White Ghost, Reese’s Peanut Butter Bats, Reese’s Peanut Butter footBalls [sic], and [deep breath] Reese’s Peanut Butter Shapes Assortment Snowmen Stockings Bells.” I don’t know what a Shape Assortment Snowmen Stockings Bells looks like, and I doubt Plaintiff does either. She only alleges that she personally bought the defective and fraudulently marketed blind-pumpkin product pictured above, a purchase she insists she would never have made had she known “it did not have the detailed carvings of the mouth and/or eyes as pictured on the product label.”

She does not explain why the aforementioned carvings of the mouth and/or eyes were important to her, and given that we can assume her purpose in buying said pumpkins was to immediately put them into her mouth orifice or allow someone else to do so, not to put them on public display, it seems highly unlikely that the carvings were in fact important. Or, to use law words that will be appearing in a motion to dismiss very soon, it is not plausible that missing peanut-butter-pumpkin eyeholes would be material to a reasonable consumer. The End.