Sure, McDonald’s is owed damages - in theory. Defendants Dave Morris and Helen Steel, who distributed a leaflet with a slew of charges against McDonald’s, were ordered to pay $98,000, though it’s unclear whether the company will try to collect. The judge ruled that the company wasn’t - as alleged - to blame for starvation in the Third World, the destruction of the Central American rain forest or serving up unhealthy food that might cause fatal disease. Nor had it lied about its use of recycled paper. On the other hand, it was re- sponsible for mistreating animals, paying low wages and exploiting children through its ads. If that hurt, think of the publicity. The trial was already the subject of a book, TV documentaries and innumerable press and radio reports worldwide. A common theme: the family-friendly multinational that squashes free speech. ““McDonald’s may have won the bat- tle, but they lost the war,’’ says London PR- company boss Quentin Bell.
The civil-liberties lobby is uneasy, too. After all, McDonald’s was taking advantage of England’s lopsided libel laws, which make it all too easy for the powerful to gag their critics. (Crooked media mogul Robert Maxwell, for example, used the courts to silence prying journalists.) In similar U.S. cases the plaintiffs must prove disregard of the truth; not so in England. And an English libel defendant must show the truth of each of his allegations, while in the United States the burden is reversed. ““The case would never have been brought in America,’’ says London libel lawyer Mark Stephens. ““If such people are criticized, they have the power to respond; they don’t need the protection of the libel law. McDonald’s was trying to censor a critical view, and that’s unacceptable.’’ Pressure for legal reform in England is now expected to build.
Still, McDonald’s is admitting no blunders. The judgment vindicates its actions, says Paul Preston, president of McDonald’s U.K. ““We brought this case to protect a reputation trusted by millions of customers every day.’’ No matter who really won the day, a little media flak won’t change the eating habits of the 10 million Brits who visit McDonald’s each week. Says Bell: ““The sad truth is that all this won’t affect McDonald’s bottom line.’’ But neither will it stifle criticism. Campaigners say a ““McSpotlight’’ Web site that sets out the anti-Ronald case gets more than a million visitors a month. ““No court on this planet is going to keep me from expressing my opinion,’’ Morris said last week. A fresh batch of 400,000 leaflets repeating the old charges is ready for distribution. And this time McDonald’s may not be so quick to wheel out the big legal guns.
