Other Contributors

About Us

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Fed to Curb Credit Card Abuse | Main | Industry and Republican Allies Gear up to Fight Moderate Consumer Health and Safety Bill »

Thursday, February 28, 2008



You complain in the same breath that "there is no adequate substantiation that either has a stimulant effect" and "this is candy in a can with alcohol and stimulants thrown into the mix".

The beliefs and actions of your organization are ridiculous - as above comments that ridicule you tend to prove.

have you conducted any studies to find out whether or not adults prefer sweet, tasty quaffable beverages to "a fine wine or single malt scotch"

You should. You will find that adults consume sweet tasty quaffable beverages in far greater quantities than either of these beverages that you position as 'adult'.

I know ad hominem arguments have no strength, but you folks seem moronic.


This is idiotic.

A perfect example of what is wrong with tort law, social coercive utopians, and misguided money-grubbing attorneys. So when is someone going to sue you guys and hold you accountable for the economic and social damages you're doing? When is a sensible judge going to sanction you for this kind of unreasonable litigation. Where is FRCP Rule 11 when we need it? You guys need to have your licenses suspended for a couple of years ... where's the Ethics board?

As a parent, I don't need your help in protecting my children from products they can't legally purchase. The companies you mention are in the business of selling beverages that taste good and have a certain pleasing effect on humans, and just because children are humans doesn't mean they are being "targeted"

Guess what, the world is full of stuff that is bad for children, bad for adults,... but it's none of your business to interfere in non-coerced consensual transactions. And I reject the entire concept that advertising is so devious that it obsolves me of responsibility for making my own choices.

... what kind of nanny-state, prudish, holier-than thou, self-righteous, ... oh never mind, I'm sure this is just wasted on the likes of you. Like I said, I hope you end up disbarred.

Supremacy Claus

Steve: Thanks.

How many children belong to your association? How many drank the offending beverages? What damage did they suffer? Is the reduction of underage drinking part of your mission prior to this claim?

You may face these questions from the defense.

Steve Gardner

Responses to comments:

Supremacy Claus (nice name!):

Standing is conferred three ways. Under laws such as DC's consumer protection statute, there is representational standing. Under most state laws, CSPI would have both associational standing to sue on behalf of its members and institutional standing to sue because its own efforts to curb underage drinking are undercut by the beer companies making products that primarily appeal to underage drinkers.

DngrMse:'s bad enough that it's a full-time job to persuade the government to do its job to protect underage drinkers....but also having to contend with people who post comments without having done their homework is just sad. The Center for Science in the Public Interest is a non-profit outfit--and we have several lawyers in addition to myself who were lured away from the promise of money in order to protect the public. Also, unless DngrMse is under 21, we are not trying to protect him from himself--that too would appear to be a full-time job.

DngrMse's bad enough that it's a full time job to keep the government from protecting me from my own actions....but also having to contend with a for profit group of greedy lawyers suggest it's a losing battle. Might as well be barking at the moon though, as I don't think there's anything on this earth that can lure a lawyer away from the promise of money. Unless it's more money.

Damn bloodsuckers.

Supremacy Claus

Steve: What standing do you have?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

May 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31