Beer won't guarantee you hot women?

[StoneMtn]

I just learned of an absolutely absurd legal action from the United States from a little over ten years ago. It’s so ridiculous, I thought I’d like to share. It seems that poor Mr. Overton believed that drinking beer would score him hot women and guarantee him a great time. It didn’t, and in fact after he drank too much he became sick, so he sued.

I’ve edited this to make it as simple to read as possible, but the main facts are all still there. Enjoy the idiocy…

Overton v. Anheuser-Busch Co.

RICHARD OVERTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH CO.,

Defendant-Appellee.

May 16, 1994, Decided

…

Opinion:

… Plaintiff appeals as of right the circuit court order granting summary disposition to defendant and dismissing plaintiff's complaint, filed in propria persona, for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and money damages under Michigan's pricing and advertising act …

On June 6, 1991, plaintiff sued defendant, a brewer and seller of beer and malt liquor, claiming that defendant had violated the provisions of the PAA by placing before the public advertisements for its products that contain "statements and/or representations which are untrue, deceptive and/or misleading." As a result, plaintiff claimed, he and the general public had been led to consume defendant's products, which defendant knew were dangerous and likely to cause serious health problems, including addiction and death. In support of his claims, plaintiff pointed to defendant's television advertisements featuring Bud Light as the source of fantasies coming to life, fantasies involving tropical settings, and beautiful women and men engaged in unrestricted merriment. Plaintiff sought monetary damages in excess of $10,000, alleging that defendant's misleading advertisements had caused him physical and mental injury, emotional distress, and financial loss.

…

Here, plaintiff has made a two-pronged attack. First, he asserts that defendant's advertising is deceptive and misleading because it falsely suggests that defendant's beer is the source of fantasies come to life. … Second, plaintiff asserts that the advertising is deceptive and misleading because it portrays beer in a positive light only, without reference to the dangers inherent in the consumption of alcoholic beverages, i. e., omits a material fact. ...

We conclude that defendant has no duty … to disclose the dangers inherent in the consumption of beer. Our Supreme Court has long recognized that the dangers inherent in alcohol consumption are well known to the public. … Because the dangers inherent in the consumption of beer are well known to the general public, nothing material was concealed. Defendant had no duty under the common law or § 6 of the PAA to "disclose" in its advertisements damages that are already well known.

Therefore, summary disposition was properly granted to defendant on plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted…

Affirmed.

[Calamity Jane]

I liked this line:

"men engaged in unrestricted merriment"

wow, people will try anything, eh? That's our "lottery-culture" for ya!

[Snail]

That's hilarious. I kinda wish he'd won. If you take the same argument "dangers inherent in the consumption of beer are well known to the general public" and change beer to heroin/pot/lsd/ectasy/crack etc... then there should be no reason why any of these intoxicants should be illegal. Sounds to me like the court is basically saying that people have the ability/information to decide what is right for them and the advertisers can spin it any way they want and we (the consumers) will remain steadfast in our beliefs. Sounds good to me. The reason I don't do heroin and crack is not because it illegal its because I have the ability/information to decide what is right for me.