McLibel case
The McLibel Case (a libel suit , Eng .: to libel ) is a slang term for a long-lasting English trial by McDonald's against David Morris and Helen Steel (also known as "The Libel Two") is defined by a complaint by the McDonald's Corporation was started. The trigger was a leaflet critical of McDonald's that Steel and Morris allegedly distributed. The case lasted seven years, making it the longest in English history.
Although McDonald's won two separate hearings on the case in English courts, some consider it a "moral defeat" for the company. The legal proceedings developed into an image disaster for the company. As a result, McDonald's has repeatedly stressed that they have no plans to claim the £ 40,000 awarded by the English courts.
history
publication
In 1986 London Greenpeace (not to be confused with Greenpeace International ) distributed a paper critical of McDonald's entitled What's Wrong with McDonald's: Everything They Don't Want You to Know.
The publication accused McDonald's of the following:
- Selling unhealthy food
- Employee exploitation
- Unethical Marketing (especially related to children)
- Cruelty to animals
- Waste of resources
- Contribution to poverty in the developing world (farmers would be driven off their land so that McDonald's could grow potatoes or raise cattle in their place)
- Pollution from their packaging
- Completely to blame for the destruction of the South American rainforest.
The leaflet was considered a failure before McDonald's reacted. It has now been translated into 26 languages.
Legal proceedings
In 1990, McDonald's responded by filing a defamation suit against five London Greenpeace activists, Paul Gravett, Andrew Clarke, Jonathan O'Farell, and Steel and Morris for distributing the leaflet on the street in London. The case was assigned to Judge Rodger Bell.
You should apologize to the company and submit a cease and desist statement. Under English law, the defendant must be able to prove the veracity of his denigrating claims.
Three of the defendants (Gravett, Clarke and O'Farrell) apologized and signed a cease and desist, but Steel and Morris did not. McDonald's then withdrew its lawsuits against the above three, but upheld those against Steel and Morris.
They were denied legal support by the courts. Free legal support from private individuals, they defended themselves and did a lot of research in their free time; eventually they called 180 people to the stand to prove their allegations of food poisoning, unpaid overtime, misleading claims by McDonald's about their recycling, and even about spies that McDonald's smuggled into London Greenpeace.
In June 1995, after the proceedings had already lasted a year, McDonald's offered out of court to donate a large sum to a charitable organization (to be determined by Steel and Morris) and withdraw the lawsuit if Steel and Morris declare that they would no longer criticize McDonald's.
On June 19, a more than 1,000-page judgment was passed in favor of McDonald's. The 45-page summary was read out in court. While that was a legal victory, it has long been referred to as a Pyrrhic victory for the company. So Judge Bell noticed that McDonald's
- endangers the health of their customers with misleading advertising,
- Is to blame for unnecessary cruelty to animals,
- Is reluctant to trade unions
- Employees poorly paid.
Although the court awarded McDonald's £ 60,000, the litigation cost was much higher. The defendants could not pay this sum. The total cost of McDonald's is estimated at £ 10 million. Steel and Morris appealed the judgment. In the revision, the amount awarded to McDonald's was reduced from £ 60,000 to £ 40,000.
More cases
The defendants later found out that McDonald's had not only infiltrated London Greenpeace with spies who had sexual relations with members and broke into their business premises, but also abused links with law enforcement agencies to obtain information about the defendants. Morris and Steel later sued Scotland Yard and received £ 10,000 and an apology.
European Court of Human Rights
Steel and Morris argued before English Law Lords that their right to legal aid (to ensure a fair trial) had been denied. When they refused to take the case, the couple went to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to challenge UK government guidelines that legal aid was not guaranteed for defamation claims. In September 2004 she was heard by the ECHR. Her lawyers alleged that the original trial placed two poor, powerless individuals against a rich and powerful company, violating their rights to free speech and to a fair trial. With the judgment, the ECHR criticized the British law, which was not able to adequately protect the right to public criticism of a company (Art. 10) and condemned the biased nature of the proceedings due to the lack of legal resources of the defendants, the complex and the repressive nature of UK libel laws and the imbalance between the parties (thereby violating Article 6).
On January 15, 2005, the 20-year legal dispute (including 11 years of legal proceedings) ended when the ECHR ruled that the original case violated Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights have. The British government was sentenced to £ 57,000 in damages in favor of the McLibel Two.
Statements on the judgment
In response to the judgment, Steel and Morris issued the following press release:
“By largely beating McDonald's [...] we were able to expose the notoriously repressive and unfair British laws. As a result of today's ruling, the government could be forced to improve or delete parts of UK law. We hope the verdict will lead to closer public scrutiny of powerful organizations whose practices have a harmful impact on society and the environment. The McLibel campaign has already proven that dedicated and widespread grassroots protests, coupled with defiance, can undermine those who try to silence their critics and can even stand up to repressive laws. The steadily growing opposition to McDonald's and everything it stands for is a defense of all efforts around the world that led to the exposure and combating of McDonald's business practices. ”(Source: mcspotlight.org)
McDonald's did not comment on the ruling.
Cinematic processing
The case was prepared in 1997 by the British filmmaker Franny Armstrong in collaboration with Ken Loach under the title McLibel as a documentary . The first broadcast on British television was legally prevented in the same year, the film could only be broadcast after the court proceedings before the European Court of Justice in 2005.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Franny Armstrong. (No longer available online.) The Age of Stupid, archived from the original on July 28, 2010 ; Retrieved November 27, 2010 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
