Not The Onion

16291 readers

372 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

335

Texas man sues Whataburger for nearly $1 million after burger had onions on it (www.kens5.com)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

118 comments fedilink hide all child comments

HOUSTON — A Houston man is suing Whataburger for nearly $1 million after he says his burger had onions on it.

Turns out he had asked for a no-onions order.

On July 24, 2024, Demery Ardell Wilson had an allergic reaction after eating a burger that had onions on it at Whataburger, court documents say. He alleges that he requested the fast-food chain to take them off before serving him the burger.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What I'm saying is stop supporting companies that don't care; stop giving them money and don't eat there again if they can't follow your request. I'll say it a 3rd time, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

That's not callous indifference, that's 1) voting with your wallet and 2) trying to promote a little self-reliance.

[–] ricecake 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Just for the record, other people haven't necessarily seen other comments you've made. Acting indignant about that is frustrating.

What's callous indifference is the company having an attitude that allergy safety is too much work, not thinking you should vote with you wallet.

A lawsuit is part of voting with your wallet. More specifically, giving them a financial incentive to take food safety more seriously.

I seriously doubt the guy is going to go back to either restaurant, so voting with his wallet and not giving them money for a burger is done, and likely doesn't cover the costs he incurred as a result of their error.

When is a lawsuit appropriate if not after a business decides to cut corners and hurts you?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

What's frustrating is people thinking they can fight a corrupt system from within the corrupt system, playing by their rules. The story of Winston Smith in 1984 is a lesson, not something to model your life after.

Suing someone, if you have the capitol to do so and actually win, doesn't do a whole lot in the long run and it isn't accessible to a lot of people because of the cost. It's part of the operating costs for large corporations these days.

Let's take Whataburger. Their best year they pulled in $6.7m profit. If you had 7 suits @ $1m payout all occur at the same time and win, then great, you might do something. However, neither of the two cases this guy is suing for have come to a conclusion yet, and it's just one person. They also still have an income source from patrons that are still buying their product, so they will make it back and they know that.

If you instead spread the word and cut off their income source by raising awareness of it, it becomes much more effective and there's no BS legal crap going on that can be twisted by lawyers. Just pure loss of profits.

ETA: I repeated my comment precisely because I expected you didn't dig through all the comments. For those that do read through them all, they know I understand that I'm repeating myself because of all the spawned threads in here.

[–] ricecake 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're talking systemic change. A lawsuit doesn't need to cause systemic change to be worth it for the person who was wronged.

The justice system isn't always about correcting grand social inequities. Sometimes it's literally just conflict resolution and balancing things out. If I break my neighbor's fence, the judge isn't going to try to bankrupt me or have me give money as a punishment to keep me from breaking other fences. They're going to have me pay for fixing my neighbors fence because that's what's fair.

If your goal is to hurt the business, there are certainly better ways than the justice system. If your goal is for them to pay for the damage they did, the justice system is pretty much the only game in town.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You're talking systemic change.

Yes.

If your goal is to hurt the business

Yes.

As far as I'm concerned, fast food, as well as larger corporations outside the food industry, have been hurting the average human being, and nature as a whole, for far too long. We've tried the accountability route and things have only gotten worse (pointing fingers at tariffs/inflation/shrinkflation/taxes/stock market/rich piggies stuff).

So in that context, lawsuits won't do shit but placate the people it hurts long enough for them to keep sodomizing us and get away with it.

[–] ricecake 1 points 1 day ago

Given that most of the comment thread was about if the lawsuit was justified or not, you can understand how a sudden shift to systemic justice and the morality of corporations might be a little unexpected.

So it sounds like you're saying the people who have been hurt shouldn't recoup their damages, since that just stalls the continued fucking over without consequences, and instead they should... Let them get away with it, embrace getting fucked over, and take the consequences of the company onto themselves? The exact same outcome, except the corporation has even fewer costs?