products for children portray children.

[kakes 411]

ive got 2 perfect examples here:

1.According to childrens nyquil, when we are sick we lay in bed looking miserable with a thermometer and a teddy bear.

2. on the back of a packet of gushers, after it says artificial flavoring and all that it says: "Children should be seated and supervised while eating."     ...now that one really made me go WTF? can we not be trusted or something?

Post your examples/experiences here.

[Ad Bot]

[Hydrabisque]

Probably because kids will eat the entire box of gushers instead of rationing and may become a bad habit.

[kakes 411]

but what about the "seated" part?

[Teneksi]

Probably because they don't want them running around trying to eat them and making a huge mess or something.

[Jetlok]

IF THEY STAND UP WHILE EATING THEY COULD DROP ONE AND THEN THEY COULD START WALKING AND SLIP ON IT AND THEN BREAK THEIR NECK AND DIE AND forgetforgetforget stuff.

[Altered]

"Don't forget to strap your child down while feeding them this product!"

[Archano]

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.86 million to a woman who burned herself with hot coffee she purchased from fast food restaurant McDonald's. The trial judge reduced the total award to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The case was noted by some as an example of frivolous litigation;[2] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits,"[3] while others stated that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit."[4]
Liebeck's attorneys argued that McDonald's coffee was "defective", claiming that it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. Moreover, McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than the $640,000 ultimately awarded.[5] Reformers defend the popular understanding of the case as materially accurate, note that the vast majority of judges who consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury,[6] and argue that McDonald's refusal to offer more than a nuisance settlement reflects the meritless nature of the suit rather than any wrongdoing on the company's part.[7][8][9]

This is why we can't have nice things.

[kakes 411]

so everyone is for the stupid warning?
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

crap

[carolcat]

I don't understand some of the warnings, like on a mattress: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO SWALLOW MATTRESS.

-snip-

What the forget.

[Watcher In The Myst]

On the bottom of some desert thing: DO NOT TURN UPSIDE DOWN
On a hairdryer: DO NOT USE WHILE SLEEPING
Fritos Bag: You could be a winner! No purchase necessary. Details inside.
Sleep Aid: Warning: May cause drowsiness.

[HellHound]

I have that on my sleep pills. Oh another thing is: intelligence.

[Skyra]

This proves how stupid and ready-to-sue people are.

[carolcat]

This proves how stupid and ready-to-sue people are.

Exactly.

[Fredulus]

it's just the company covering their ass
we'd all do the same in their position

[kakes 411]

reminds me of how every law firm begins commercial or ends with "non-attorney spokesperson"