NEWARK, N.J. (Legal Newsline) – A federal judge has ruled that people who sued Taco Bell because their Chalupa boxes cost 99 cents more than they thought failed to pay attention to the price on the menu.
On April 7, Judge William Martini, of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, ruled against a couple who saw a commercial for $5 Chalupa Cravings Boxes and assumed the deal would apply to every Taco Bell.
The company argued the commercial disclosed the deal was at participating locations only, and that the menu at the Taco Bell in question broadcast a price of $5.99.
Judge Martini agreed, turning down claims made under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and common law fraud.
Plaintiffs lawyers argued the disclaimer was not conspicuous because it was white text on a light gray background. Taco Bell initially claimed the image might have been doctored but later declared plaintiffs lawyers must have used a low resolution version of the commercial for its screenshot.
A letter from Douglas S. Schwartz of Sisselman & Schwartz LLP and Matthew R. Mendelsohn of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC, both in Roseland, New Jersey, demanded an apology from Taco Bell.
"The fact that Defendant claims to have a version of the Librarian commercial where the disclaimer background appears darker does not mean that was how it was actually displayed on television, as evidenced by iSpot.tv; and it certainly does not support the contemptable and libelous accusation that Plaintiffs 'doctored' the image. At the very least, Defendant’s false accusation should be stricken and Defendant made to apologize to Plaintiffs’ counsel," the letter says.
Taco Bell said the plaintiffs used a reformatted and compressed video file then took a screenshot of it.
"In short, what Plaintiffs have reproduced in their brief is itself a distortion of a distortion," the company wrote in response.
"Taco Bell is entitled to challenge what Plaintiffs have done here. That is especially true when one considers that Taco Bell provided the original, high-resolution version of the 'Librarian' ad to Plaintiffs — the same version it provided to this Court — along with courtesy copies of its motion over a month ago.
"It also produced the same video in response to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. There was no reason, therefore, for Plaintiffs to go to such extraordinary lengths to find a grainy and discolored version of the commercial to present to the Court."
Judge Martini said he would consider the dispute when ruling on Taco Bell's motion for judgment, but his decision did not take either side. He wrote that the background was dark enough to comply with the law and that the plaintiffs failed to pay attention to the price when ordering.
“Point-of-purchase advertising at the Green Brook restaurant plainly disclosed the price at that location,” Martini wrote.
“Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for consumer fraud where they affirmatively chose to buy a menu item – and even paid extra for substitutions – after being put on notice that the Chalupa Cravings Box was not being offered for $5 at the restaurant they chose to visit.”
From Legal Newsline: Reach editor John O’Brien at john.obrien@therecordinc.com.