Day 012 - 18 Jul 94 - Page 48
1 of the content of any particular advertisement. Under
your analysis, any McDonald's advertisement that failed to
2 reflect your negative view of the company's products would
presumably be considered deceptive. Even the ingredient
3 and nutrition disclosure booklets which you commend, would
have to be withdrawn from Texas. This unprecedented
4 attempt to suppress an entire advertising campaign without
regard to what specific advertisements actually say, is
5 without foundation in the law and constitutes a blatantly
unconstitutional attempt to violate McDonald's First
6 Amendment rights".
7 Mr. Horwitz, so far as you are concerned as an American
lawyer, is that a correct statement of the position in
8 law?
A. Yes, that is.
9
Q. "Timing. We also object to the timing of your demand
10 which came more than three months after the advertising
campaign began. However, your letter totally disregards
11 the lead times involved in national magazine publishing.
Advertisements must be in the pipeline weeks or even
12 months before the magazines are scheduled to appear on
news stands newsstands, a point your letter does not even
13 acknowledge". Then I need not bother you with the
conclusion.
14
There is a response on the next page, 164, from
15 Mr. Gardiner at Texas:
16 "Dear Mr. Califano", dated May 5th 1987, "Attorney General
Mattox has asked me to respond to your May 4 letter to
17 him. The letter is an inadequate response to the concerns
raised in his April 24th letter. The print advertisements
18 at issue are deceptive in a number of ways, in violation
of the Texas law and demonstrate an intent to deceive
19 consumers. Recognising the lead time necessary to pull
print advertisement, the Attorney General has concluded
20 that these advertisements must be discontinued. Please
confirm McDonald's plans and timetable for discontinuing
21 use of these advertisements. Failure to respond may
result in legal action by this office to force
22 discontinuance." Did that happen?
A. No, we discontinued no advertising.
23
Q. Were you subject of a suit to force you to discontinue by
24 the State of Texas?
A. Yes, we were.
25
Q. What happened?
26 A. We felt that their claims were completely unjustified.
27 Q. Did they start proceedings?
A. No, they did not.
28
Q. I want you look at one other thing. You said before lunch
29 that the terms of the letter to Mr. Abrams were a little
softer than the terms of the letter to Mr. Gardner. I am
30 just looking for what Mr. Mattox had written on 24th
April. Can you turn back to page 131?
