A New Way to Fight Junk-Food Ads

Groups to Use Consumer-Protection Laws in Suit Against Kellogg, Viacom

By Caroline E. Mayer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 19, 2006; Page D03



Two consumer activist groups yesterday announced an unusual new legal approach in their campaign to stop junk-food ads on kids' television programs.

In the past, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood have pressed the federal government for stricter regulations and cheered on individuals who filed lawsuits against particular companies for their high-fat food. Now they say they will use state consumer-protection laws to try to stop what they believe is a deceptive and unfair business practice: advertising to young children.
The two consumer groups, which have long called for limits on all kinds of kid-focused marketing, said they sent letters to Kellogg Co. and Viacom Inc., the owner of Nickelodeon, the nation's most popular children's TV channel, saying they intended to file a class-action lawsuit in Massachusetts, which has one of the nation's most plaintiff-friendly consumer-protection laws. The companies harm children's health, the groups said, because they primarily advertise foods high in sugar, fat and salt and low in nutrients.

Though the groups allege that Kellogg and Nickelodeon each caused more than $1 billion in economic harm to Massachusetts consumers, they are not seeking monetary damages. Instead, they want the companies to stop advertising unhealthful products on shows where at least 15 percent of the audience is under age 8. They also want the network to stop allowing its popular characters, such as SpongeBob SquarePants and Dora the Explorer, to be used to promote unhealthful foods.

The letters from the consumer groups, giving 30 days' notice of a legal filing, are required by the state as the first step in the legal process. Legal experts say cases may be easier to prove under state consumer-protection laws because they do not require plaintiffs to justify that a company's practices led to a specific injury or illness.

CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner signaled that other companies may be future targets: "Our suing just those two companies does not mean that the practices of all the others are okay. They're not. General Mills, McDonald's, Burger King and other companies all deserve attention in the future."