Media mogul Byron Allen's $10billion racial discrimination lawsuit against McDonald's was given the green-light to proceed by a US court on Friday, nearly a year after it was dismissed last December. Allen alleges McDonald's intentionally chooses not to pay to place advertisements on black-owned networks - including his own AMG Entertainment Studios and Weather Group - costing the networks millions in potential annual revenue.
So..? Isn't a company eentitled to choose where it spends its advertising revenue, then?
An attorney for McDonald's, Loretta Lynch, reiterated that Olguin did not rule on the case's merits, and insisted the allegations were baseless.
'[The decision] has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the case, but simply allows Mr. Allen to continue to try, as he has for more than a year now, to substantiate his speculative and conclusory claims,' Lynch said, 'We believe the evidence will show that there was no discrimination and that Entertainment Studios' claims are meritless.'
Why shouldn't there be discrimination, though? Why should any company be forced into advertising with specific sectors of the population, rather than where it feels that advertising will do the most good?
Allen, in a statement, said the case was 'about economic inclusion of African American-owned businesses in the U.S. economy. McDonald's takes billions from African American consumers and gives almost nothing back.'
No, it gives them burgers and fries in exchange for their money. And that's all they are entitled to.
What's more, if McDonald's doesn't deliver good value for money, even its African American customers are free to take their hunger elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteIf McDonald's did advertise a lot on black owned TV then they would be accused of targetting blacks with unhealthy food! They can't win.
ReplyDelete