Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

[jcruise86]

LINK: Prosecutors take on Disney princess kit | UTSanDiego.com

I don't know who gets the $225,000,
and I wonder if Disney even knew what this product contained. (I guess they should have.)
Are they still selling this in other states even though it will cause some customers to equate Disney with "rip off"?
Will they continue to do business with the company that produced this?

[clara]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

I'm sorry but I fail to see where the deception was...

The unopened box:


The opened box:



Everything that was being show in the unopened package is in the open one. Is the complaint that there are empty slots?

Also it says on the package what the box contains and it looks like all of that is there.

This just sounds like a spoiled kid didn't get what she thought she was getting and mommy and daddy saw $$ signs.

The girl was crushed when she opened the container to find it empty beyond the beads she could see through the labeling on the container’s lid.

And when my kid complained I would explain the empty slots were for holding the beads and projects separate.

That is my take on it. I'm not a bracelet maker so if I am missing something here please let me know.

[GhostHostJeff]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

Very silly indeed. It says right on the packaging how many beads are in the box.

[mratigan]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

And when my kid complained I would explain the empty slots were for holding the beads and projects separate.

me too
i sad what people will now to make some $$$$$

[jcruise86]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

Thanks for posting the photo. So who did get the money?

I do think it was packaged to mislead, which is uncool to do to kids, though you could argue it provided a good teaching moment. I just hate Disney to be seen as the sleazy capitalists to be wary of. The empty boxes just looked wrong to me, but blasting Disney on the internet seems more appropriate to me than involving the government. I would like to see ads aimed at small kids (especially for unhealthy foods) outlawed as they are in some other countries.

[Goofy Daddy]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

It is only "packaged to mislead" if you call misleading the same as expecting people to have common sense and basic powers of observation. This is a typical example of parents failing to be parents and rather scapegoating others (in this case a company) for that failure and then attempting to profit on it.

[MonkeyDishwasher]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

The parent didn't sue, the lawyers did on their behalf. The money is supposed to be going toward prohibiting future "fraudulent practices" through the legal system.

Also, Disney didn't get hit with the lawsuit, the toy manufacturer did. Disney simply licensed their images and properties to them to produce the product in question. Whether or not Disney actually knew what was going on with the toy is (as far as I can tell from the article) unknown.

[wiigirl]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

Personally I would think there would be some sort of check and balance with Disney licensing.

[BC_DisneyGeek]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

I can see where that would be irritating as a consumer, but it's not uncommon.

Is it now a requirement that the entire contents of a product be visible? What if you couldn't see any of the contents? This packaging is misleading, but what next? A box of candy has to be translucent so you can see how many are actually in the box?

Lego in particular does a very good job using over sized boxes and imagery to make it look like you're getting more than you actually do.

[Mr Wiggins]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

No question about it, that box is classic deceptive packaging. The box is more than 50% air -- which fact is conveniently covered by the artwork. "Fillers" and oversize packaging that disguise the fillers are common techniques of false advertising.

[fifthrider]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

It may feel deceptive but if it contains what the packaging said it would contain, then it was honest. If anything it contains all of that plus storage compartments.

Normally I side with the defrauded consumer because no one likes a cheat, except what was advertised here was honest so.... you know, get over it. ....or show your kid that in this self-entitled society you should be able to sue anyone if you find yourself disappointed. .....at the clearly printed truth on the cover of the box you're looking right at.

---------- Post added 11-19-2012 at 11:31 AM ----------

Come to think of it, if we're going to go there let's sue every snack food that has air in their bags.

Oh wait...

Product Packaging: Consumer Reports Investigates

[indianajack]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

This is classic deceptive advertising, the shape and placement of imagery on the box is designed to fool, and the courts are especially protective when it comes to children's products since they are an unsophisticated audience.
Here's another example with an inflatable water toy that specifies it dimensions, but the imagery on the box is clearly intended to deceive:

How Photoshop Ruined This Poor Girl's Summer

[fifthrider]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

Well now I see that one completely different. The beads mentioned above are the size they appear to be through the window, and it includes all the bits it said it would. There's no lie there.

But this thing you just posted, about the waterslide? Yeah, that's just total BS. That's deceptive photoshop to shamelessly fool people into expecting one thing but getting another. I'm in total agreement about THAT being fraud.

[TimmyTimmyTimmy]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

I'm sorry but I fail to see where the deception was...

The unopened box:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]25107[/ATTACH]

The opened box:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25108[/ATTACH]

.

[clara]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

This is classic deceptive advertising, the shape and placement of imagery on the box is designed to fool, and the courts are especially protective when it comes to children's products since they are an unsophisticated audience.
Here's another example with an inflatable water toy that specifies it dimensions, but the imagery on the box is clearly intended to deceive:

How Photoshop Ruined This Poor Girl's Summer

Clearly...this and this:




Are photoshopped. I mean in the picture above...the box pictured pool looks at least a foot longer than the actual pool!

[FreshBakedDisney]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

There are merits to both sides of this argument. But for me, the bottom line is that my first impression, when looking at the photos, was "hmmm....that's messed up." do the right thing people!

[indianajack]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

One thing courts look at is intent, was the design of the package intended to deceive or an organic part of the packaging's nature? Based on how the graphic overlay completely covers the empty chambers, the court ruled that the product's packaging was deceptive. Why else would the overlay be designed as such?
And even if one doesn't think it should be illegal to do this, Kantian deontological ethics would say it is ethically wrong to intend to deceive for monetary gain, especially when directed at children. That's why the packaging just "feels wrong" to some posters.

[fshagan]

Re: Disney fined for rip-off princess toy

One thing courts look at is intent, was the design of the package intended to deceive or an organic part of the packaging's nature? Based on how the graphic overlay completely covers the empty chambers, the court ruled that the product's packaging was deceptive. Why else would the overlay be designed as such?
And even if one doesn't think it should be illegal to do this, Kantian deontological ethics would say it is ethically wrong to intend to deceive for monetary gain, especially when directed at children. That's why the packaging just "feels wrong" to some posters.

I agree. BTW - the newspaper story says the money goes to the government, not the girl or her parents. She was made whole because the prosecutors bought her toy from her for the original purchase price. The prosecutor's employers (ie., the government) will keep the rest of the money.

Girl and other children who were disappointed: 0, Government: $225,000

At least she learned a good life lesson. Don't trust packaging, and don't trust the government.