Remember the case in which Roy Pearson, a federal administrative law judge, sued his dry cleaner for millions of dollars for losing his pants? Of course you do. In reality, the claim that went to trial was consumer fraud. The dry cleaner had posted a sign, "Satsfaction Guaranteed." The judge was dissatisfied, ergo the sign constituted fraud. In turn, under Washington DC's consumer protection law, he was entitled to statutory damages of $1,500 per violation per day per defendant, which he claimed added up to over $50 million.
In a decision replete with common sense, Judge Judith Bartnoff dissected and dismissed Pearson's claim.
"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands or to accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute," the ruling said. " . . . The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever." (Link: WaPo)
Obviously, this is the right result. The sign was classic puffery, which no reasonable person would believe is meant to be taken literally. Hopefully the decision will call into question the many consumer "protection" laws who breadth and veagueness invite just this sort of frivoulous litigation. Yet, part of me is a little sad. Think of the opportunities we've lost:
- Run into a grumpy flight attendant on United, sue because you didn't experience the "Friendly Skies"
- Disappointed to find only gasoline in your tank, sue Exxon for failing to provide the "tiger in your tank" they promised
- Your insurance agent fails to hold you close, sue Allstate for not providing "good hands"
- Think Fox News leans GOP, sue them for not being "fair and balanced"
- Get bitter coffee dregs, sue Maxwell house for not being "good to the last drop"
Imagine, we might have had a world without puffery. (Yeah, right.)
