![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Eric Turkewitz, The Turkewitz Law Firm, New York, NY |
||||||||||||||||||||
Wednesday, July 30, 2008Ben & Jerry's Fear of Lawyers Kills Video Submission After our spirits were crushed when our little Ben & Jerry's birthday video was banned, I decided to follow up with an email for the reason. So here is the reason they gave us:They claim their lawyers wouldn't approve it. I kid you not. Here is the direct quote from the email I received from their marketing department: While we appreciated it internally (and we did), there is no way our legal team would have allowed that one to go through.Now that would be totally nuts. Except that Totally Nuts is already in the Graveyard of dearly departed flavors, so it must be something else. I also note that it doesn't appear to violate any actual contest rule. (Ben-Jerrys-VideoRules.pdf) So I followed up, wanting to know, did the lawyers really look at our video? And the answer was, apparently not. It wasn't a lawyer that sent us into the freezer, but concerns that a lawyer might do so in the future. From email number two: It would have had to pass by Legal in order to be considered a top ten finalist. I've worked here for ten years and I know it would not have passed.Again, no rule violation. Just a concern that maybe there would be a lawyer without a sense of humor, because in a third email I was told it might have "inappropriate content." If we were shot down by lawyers we could understand that. Sometimes it's the lawyers' job to be wet blankets. But the marketing department? What in the name of Cherry Garcia is going on here? Marketing people are supposed to be the kind of folk who push the limits. Creative souls. Not fearful little bunnies, afraid of their own shadows. Let the lawyers be Vanilla. The marketing people should be Wavy Gravy mixed with Wild Maine Blueberry, willing to go the Full VerMonty served with Nutty Waffle Cone. It's now clear that this contest is little more than a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. If you're as upset at our family is you can whine, belly-ache and complain to benjerrybirthday@ugenmedia.com. And does anyone know a good ice cream lawyer? Labels: Odds and Ends
Comments:
Eric--
Am I the only one who is astounded by the irony here? You've been harmed (albeit slightly) due to an irrational fear of lawyers! That same fear of the legal system is driving doctors to a ridiculous level of over-ordering and over-prescribing that is bankrupting our healthcare system. Research studies now show an increased cancer risk with cat-scans -- many of which were ordered purely for defensive medicine reasons. Many hospitals are finding it almost impossible to find emergency coverage for orthopedics and neurosurgery due to medicolegal risk. I'm not trying to deny that malpractice occurs -- certainly it does. Through your blog and website we see how you try to help those who have been harmed. However for each one of those there are many thousands who are harmed little by little because of the fear instilled in doctors, the overwhelming majority of whom are conscientious and caring. From one of those living this on the front lines: welcome to the tinyest taste of what this frustration feels like.
ER Doc:
Glad you appreciated the posts. If I were not an attorney, they wouldn't have been worth writing.
The marketing person who responded to you obviously didn’t realize you are a lawyer when she told you the reason your video entry was rejected was because it wouldn’t pass legal dept. muster!
Post a Comment
The fact that B&J’s already has an ice cream flavor called “Karamel Sutra” is in itself sexually suggestive, yet legal approved THAT, so why would a video of people eating it in their kitchen, fully clothed, give rise to some legal claim?!?! Links to this post: << Home
The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way. Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained. Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice. Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.
|
Subscribe by Email
|
|||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
An Affiliate of the Law.com Network
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
Copyright © 2007 Eric Turkewitz & The Turkewitz Law Firm
About the New York Personal Injury Law Blog:
An attorney's blog on New York personal injury law,
medical malpractice, the civil justice system
and cases of interest.
|
|
Design by Lidija Tomas Design / Studio 4D |