317 F. Supp. 3d 1012
E.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiff filed a putative class action under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) and unjust enrichment, challenging McDonald’s Extra Value Meal marketing as deceptively implying a price savings.
- Complaint alleges Extra Value Meals bundle items (e.g., two sausage burritos, hash browns, medium coffee) that can be bought a la carte, and that the bundle was sometimes more expensive than purchasing items separately.
- Plaintiff alleges she purchased a Sausage Burrito Extra Value Meal for $5.08 but the same items a la carte would have cost $4.97, and seeks to represent two classes of similarly situated consumers.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the court focuses on whether any deception could survive given available price information at point of sale.
- The court found that menu/pricing information available to consumers at the restaurant would dispel any misleading inference from the label “Extra Value Meal.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Extra Value Meal marketing violated the ICFA by misleading consumers into paying more than a la carte prices | Marketing called the bundle a "value," implying a lower total price than buying items separately; plaintiff relied on that implication and alleged she paid more | Menus and posted prices at point of sale provided accurate price information that would dispel any misleading inference from the "Extra Value Meal" label | Dismissed: no viable ICFA claim because available point-of-sale pricing information negated any possibility of deception |
Key Cases Cited
- Bober v. Glaxo Wellcome PLC, 246 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2001) (no ICFA deception where available information showed products contained same active ingredient)
- Batson v. Live Nation Entm't, Inc., 746 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2014) (no ICFA claim where allegedly "hidden" fees were disclosed in available purchase information)
- Tudor v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 288 Ill. App.3d 207 (Ill. App. 1997) (no ICFA claim when register/receipt accurately reflected price despite advertising/shelf discrepancy)
- Saunders v. Michigan Ave. Nat. Bank, 278 Ill. App.3d 307 (Ill. App. 1996) (no ICFA claim where allegedly hidden fee was disclosed in provided materials)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (contrast: misleading packaging can survive where contextual disclosures do not cure the misleading impression)
- Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1992) (FTC deceptive-practices context cited but not controlling on ICFA issue)
- In re 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig., 275 F. Supp.3d 910 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (statements ambiguous in isolation may be clarified by other available information)