Hot dog lawsuits: Will real wiener emerge?
Every lawsuit has its losers. But rare is the case with wieners on both sides.
America鈥檚 two biggest hot dog brands, Oscar Mayer and Ball Park, began to duke it out in a Chicago federal court on Monday, in a bid to end three years of legal wrangling over advertising allegations.
The dispute began in 2009 with a national hot dog taste test by Kraft Foods, maker of Oscar Mayer hot dogs. It advertised that Americans prefer their dogs over Ball Park franks. Sara Lee, which owns Ball Park franks, sued, saying that its hot dogs weren鈥檛 prepared and served properly in the test.
But that's just the start of it.
Each company is also contesting claims that the other has made about its own frankfurters. Kraft says it鈥檚 Jumbo Beef Franks are made with 鈥�100 percent pure beef,鈥� which Sara Lee says is misleading. And Sara Lee claimed in a 2009 ad that its hot dogs are 鈥淎merica鈥檚 Best Franks,鈥� and that other hot dogs 鈥渁ren鈥檛 even in the same league.鈥� Here, Kraft would beg to differ.
"Not in the entire history of American hot dogs ... was a campaign of this scope launched," Sara Lee attorney Richard Leighton said of Kraft's allegedly misleading advertising on Monday, the Associated Press reports. Kraft attorney Stephen O'Neil responded by calling the filing of the lawsuit "an act of utter hypocrisy" on Sara Lee's part, because Ball Park franks have also been labeled as "all beef" when they, too, contained other ingredients.
This kind of lawsuit, when a company questions the fairness of its competitor鈥檚 comparison tests or claims, is quite common, says Harold Weinberger, a partner at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP in New York, who teaches a course in false advertising law at Columbia University in New York.
A company can be sued if it makes a claim that is literally false or implicitly false, says Mr. Weinberger. For instance, Kraft says it advertised 鈥�100 percent pure beef鈥� to let customers know that beef is the only meat in the hot dog, but not that it is the only ingredient. If it can be proven that customers are misled by the statement, then Kraft could be at fault, says Weinberger.
As for Sara Lee鈥檚 claim that it makes 鈥淎merica鈥檚 Best Frank,鈥� Weinberger says, 鈥渢hat鈥檚 historically viewed as a form of 鈥榩uffing.鈥欌�� The word 鈥渂est,鈥� is nonspecific, and could refer to the hot dog鈥檚 appearance, taste, price, or any other number of non-objective qualities. 鈥淚t鈥檚 generally not actionable [in court],鈥� Weinberger says.
Brand advertisements first started attacking competition in the mid-80s, Weinberger says.
鈥淜raft and Sara Lee aren鈥檛 the only ones going at it with disputes over marketing,鈥� right now, says Erin Lash, an analyst at the Chicago-based investment research firm Morningstar. 鈥淐hurch & Dwight and Clorox have been battling about cat litter.鈥�
Earlier this year, Church & Dwight, the maker of Arm & Hammer Super Scoop kitty litter, complained that Clorox, the maker of Fresh Step litter, aired a misleading ad. The ad showed cats turning their noses at litter boxes with Super Scoop and opting for the Fresh Step instead.
Cats and dogs aside, maintaining a solid reputation is crucial for any company nowadays.
鈥淔rom the perspective of the consumer, spending still remains tight,鈥� says Ms. Lash. 鈥淏rand perception and getting out in front of these consumers is crucial.鈥�
鈥淭hey wouldn鈥檛 be going to court if they didn鈥檛 think it mattered,鈥� she adds.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
