Keurig Dr Pepper today is worth (depending where you look) over $50 billion with over $2 billion in profits (thus far) for 2022. Therefore, a $10 million settlement is chump-change. It will probably cost them more just to administer the payout program.
Clearly, in this case, the settlement was not meant to punish, but to appease some, but I think more significantly, to send a message to other companies. And when it comes to class action lawsuits and punitive damages, I am 100% okay with that.
But with many companies, they need incentives to "stop" their anti-consumer ways instead of simply accepting settlement payouts as part of doing business. It seems some companies feel empowered, encouraged, or at least safe to do thing the wrong way in the name of higher profits. Volkswagen comes to mind.
[Rant on]
That said, I think the Keurig case is a bit of a sham, most likely brought on by shysters and ambulance chasers because in this case, I think this was a simple
and innocent marketing mistake - or not even a mistake (because the materials are 100% recyclable) but a marketing oversight, or something "lost in translation" when the verbiage got printed on the packaging.
There is nothing in the suit, as far as I can find, about consumers expected to rinse out the cups first. The issue is about the size of the cups being too small for "some" recycling programs to deal with - physically, contractually, cost-effectively or otherwise. They can indeed be recycled. It just is not economically feasible to do so. So many localities don't. And that's the issue.
FTR, the mandated recycling program's guide in my town says, "
Please rinse bottles, cans, jugs and cartons before recycling." And why wouldn't I? I don't take my recycling waste outside to the tub every day. If I don't rinse out my milk and food containers first, my house will surely start to stink and likely soon be infested with ants and who knows what?
"IF" the plaintiffs had evidence Keurig knew many recycling programs would not take the used cups
and "IF" they had evidence Keurig knew the wording on their products was misleading but intentionally did nothing about it in order to
deceive consumers, then, no doubt the settlement would have been much higher - and rightfully so, IMO.
To go further,
"IF" the cups were made of plastics widely known to be unrecyclable (blister plastics made with polycarbonate, for example), and Keurig marketed them as recyclable anyway, then the settlement would have been much higher. And if that was the case, even if Keurig didn't know that plastic was not recyclable, they should have. But if Keurig did know, and marketed them as recyclable anyway, then that might even have been criminal - with fines and penalties piled on top. But none of that appears to have happened here - hence the chump-change settlement.
I am glad it is easy to sue here in the US. That is what allowed me to sue the previous [slum lord] owner of the apartments behind me when, instead of fixing his water run-off problem, he knocked a 2 foot hole in the curb of his parking lot. That allowed the rain from 5 1/2 acres of land above his apartments to come washing through my and my neighbor's properties. I won nearly $40K which just barely covered the cost of my new driveway and retaining walls replacing those washed out by the "redirected" water runoff.
Being able to sue is what allowed my sister to sue when the entire surgical team (surgeon, anesthesiologist, 2 nurses and 2 techs) went off to celebrate a successful hip-replacement surgery, leaving my brother-in-law
alone on the operating table where he went into cardiac arrest. No one was there to see all the flashing lights or hear all the bells, alarms and whistles until the clean-up crew came in to clean the OR! His brain was without oxygen for more than 9 minutes. He never came out of his coma and my sister was forced to "pull the plug" 11 days later.
Did she sue and win? Yes, but... .
What we in the US, and likely everywhere need is better "regulation" because clearly, there no longer is any ethics in the legal profession. We need courts that will readily toss cases that have no merit (frivolous) and we need a system that weeds out (even punish) ambulance chasers and shysters - lawyers who seek out, fabricate and exaggerate issues (that are really non-issues) just to line their own pockets. And we need laws that protect and, when prudent, appropriately and proportionally compensate and award the common, but wronged citizen/victim.
Follow me here - for the record, doctors (and the entire healthcare industry) love and hate lawyers. Lawyers are the reason malpractice insurance is so necessary and so very expensive. But when the healthcare industry (with their deep pockets and armies of shysters) are the plaintiffs, they love the lawyers.
Same with governments. Let's not forget the largest block of law makers are lawyers. If your government allows citizens to sue their governments (that is NOT a given), odds are, any possible settlement will be capped and very limited.
To illustrate, my sister sued and easily won for "gross negligent malpractice" against the University of South Carolina at Charleston Medical Center, the surgeon and primarily, the anesthesiologist. Note, it is the anesthesiologist who ultimately has the responsibility for the patient while the patient is in the OR and under sedation. BUT, this was a "state" university medical center - a public hospital. And they made a law in that state (turns out, similar laws are in most states) that caps the state's liability. In South Carolina, it is just $1.5 million - regardless how egregious, preventable, negligent or even criminal the offense.
And in SC, the law also says with any such award, it is mandated that 50% goes to the spouse, and 50% is split among the children.
So my sister ended up with $750k and a dead husband of 35 years, and the 3 kids no longer had a dad. The medical center "admitted to no wrongdoing". Absolutely nothing happened to the surgeon. The anesthesiologist "stepped down" the next day and started his new job as Chief of Anesthesiology at a university medical center in another state the following Monday - with a sweet pay-raise too. How? Because the lawyers, paid handsomely by the university, ensured their clients were protected.
So will there ever be better rules, regulations (and ethics) in the legal profession? Of course not. Why? Because politicians are only there to get re-elected and to do that they need backing from big business to include the healthcare, big pharma, etc. And those conglomerate interests don't care about the little consumer - only profit.
FTR, it has been 20 years since my brother-in-law passed, and not a single thing (law, policy, rule, regulation, etc.) has changed to keep it from happening again.
And while Freedom of the Press makes all this public knowledge - and thus why it may seem to some the US and Americans are the nastiest people and country out there, make no mistake! The problem is everywhere. But sadly, just because in your country you
may have the freedom to sue when done wrong, that in no way ensures a fair or just outcome. And clearly, much is unfair in the US. But the US is not the worst with some countries being 2, 5, 10 even 30+ times smaller in population, yet nearly or even more litigious. And in other countries, there is so much corruption, the little guy has no chance at all.
[Rant off]
