Thread: Taco Bell Gets Last Word In Shakedown Lawsuit

On May 27, 11:06*pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Taco Bell responds to the shakedown lawyers who sued them
> here:
>

Did they sue them over the beef, or over the water and the oat
"seasoning"? I'm still trying to figure out the (Wheat) Oats.

Seasoned Beef:

Beef, Water, Seasoning [Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper,
Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar,
Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic Powder,
Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder
(Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast,
Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphates.
CONTAINS SOYBEANS, WHEAT

spamtrap1888 wrote:
> On May 27, 11:06 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Taco Bell responds to the shakedown lawyers who sued them
>> here:
>>
>
> Did they sue them over the beef, or over the water and the oat
> "seasoning"? I'm still trying to figure out the (Wheat) Oats.
>
> Seasoned Beef:
>
> Beef, Water, Seasoning [Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper,
> Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar,
> Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic Powder,
> Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder
> (Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast,
> Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphates.
> CONTAINS SOYBEANS, WHEAT

Oats are commonly cross contaminated with wheat due to the way they are
grown and stored. There are gluten/wheat free oats for sale but they are
very expensive.

On 2011-05-28, Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Taco Bell responds to the shakedown lawyers who sued them
> here:

Howzabout Taco Bell apologizing to its customers for foisting off the
same lame five ingredients they've been pushing for the last 40 yrs,
now at ludicrous prices, or to small businessmen for their predetory
business practice of overselling their franchises, so as to all but
ensure failure.

Yeah, that's gonna happen.

nb

On May 28, 3:04*am, "Julie Bove" <julieb...@frontier.com> wrote:
> spamtrap1888 wrote:
> > On May 27, 11:06 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> Taco Bell responds to the shakedown lawyers who sued them
> >> here:
>
> > Did they sue them over the beef, or over the water and the oat
> > "seasoning"? I'm still trying to figure out the (Wheat) Oats.
>
> > Seasoned Beef:
>
> > Beef, Water, Seasoning [Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper,
> > Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar,
> > Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic Powder,
> > Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder
> > (Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast,
> > Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphates.
> > CONTAINS SOYBEANS, WHEAT
>
> Oats are commonly cross contaminated with wheat due to the way they are
> grown and stored. *There are gluten/wheat free oats for sale but they are
> very expensive.

Thanks, Julie! Good answer.

On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:37:39 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 wrote:

> On May 27, 11:06*pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Taco Bell responds to the shakedown lawyers who sued them
>> here:
>>
>
> Did they sue them over the beef, or over the water and the oat
> "seasoning"? I'm still trying to figure out the (Wheat) Oats.
>
> Seasoned Beef:
>
> Beef, Water, Seasoning [Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper,
> Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar,
> Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic Powder,
> Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder
> (Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast,
> Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphates.
> CONTAINS SOYBEANS, WHEAT

yum!

maybe the labeling should read 'may contain meat.'

your pal,
blake

Re: [email protected]
notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
> business practice of overselling their franchises, so as to all but
> ensure failure.

If that is true, why don't most of the Taco Bell restaurants around here
fail?

And why would they want to "all but ensure failure" of their franchises?
That's silly.

Most businesses realize that a bunch of corpses of former restaurants
littering the landscape isn't good for business. In the case of Taco Bell
they certainly saturate their selected markets, but they do their homework
in painstaking detail. Failures are more likely due to changing market
conditions and demographic shifts which cannot always be accurately
predicted.

Re: abadafd4-7e9c-40d6-86da-0feeb89086c7...oglegroups.com
spamtrap1888 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 27, 11:06 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Taco Bell responds to the shakedown lawyers who sued them
>> here:
>>
>
> Did they sue them over the beef, or over the water and the oat
> "seasoning"? I'm still trying to figure out the (Wheat) Oats.
>
> Seasoned Beef:
>
> Beef, Water, Seasoning [Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper,
> Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar,
> Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic Powder,
> Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder
> (Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast,
> Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphates.
> CONTAINS SOYBEANS, WHEAT

The beef is the beef. Everything following that word is seasoning. However I
think it would be more honest to admit that some of the seasoning is for
texture rather than flavor.

They can get dinged for not revealing potential allergens in the content,
which this list contains, but AFAIK that wasn't the basis of the suit.

On 2011-05-29, Nunya Bidnits <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Most businesses realize that a bunch of corpses of former restaurants
> littering the landscape isn't good for business.

That may be the case now, I'm no expert. Take a trip up El Camino
Real in the SFBA and look at all the lil' adobe mission style bldgs
that were once Taco Bell's in the late 80s and early 90s. There's one
about every 2-3 miles, none of them now operating TBs. Subway did the
same thing, so many in fact, they suffered serious lawsuits by
franhise buyers who hadda sue the crap outta the parent company to get
them to stop them saturatiing territories. Don't tell me you haven't
heard of the Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks.

> conditions and demographic shifts which cannot always be accurately
> predicted.

Sure pal, and I gotta bridge I can sell you cheap.

nb

"notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On 2011-05-29, Nunya Bidnits <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Most businesses realize that a bunch of corpses of former restaurants
>> littering the landscape isn't good for business.
>
> That may be the case now, I'm no expert. Take a trip up El Camino
> Real in the SFBA and look at all the lil' adobe mission style bldgs
> that were once Taco Bell's in the late 80s and early 90s. There's one
> about every 2-3 miles, none of them now operating TBs. Subway did the
> same thing, so many in fact, they suffered serious lawsuits by
> franhise buyers who hadda sue the crap outta the parent company to get
> them to stop them saturatiing territories. Don't tell me you haven't
> heard of the Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks.
>
>> conditions and demographic shifts which cannot always be accurately
>> predicted.
>
> Sure pal, and I gotta bridge I can sell you cheap.

Come to the Seattle area. You'll see so many Starbucks you'll get confused!
There is one in the Safeway and just across the street is a free standing
one. Walk out the door of the Safeway and you can see it!

In article <irsfal$5uf$[email protected]>, nunyabidnits@eternal-
september.invalid says...
>
> Re: abadafd4-7e9c-40d6-86da-0feeb89086c7...oglegroups.com
> spamtrap1888 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 27, 11:06 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> Taco Bell responds to the shakedown lawyers who sued them
> >> here:
> >>
> >
> > Did they sue them over the beef, or over the water and the oat
> > "seasoning"? I'm still trying to figure out the (Wheat) Oats.
> >
> > Seasoned Beef:
> >
> > Beef, Water, Seasoning [Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper,
> > Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar,
> > Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic Powder,
> > Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder
> > (Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast,
> > Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphates.
> > CONTAINS SOYBEANS, WHEAT
>
> The beef is the beef. Everything following that word is seasoning. However I
> think it would be more honest to admit that some of the seasoning is for
> texture rather than flavor.
>
> They can get dinged for not revealing potential allergens in the content,
> which this list contains, but AFAIK that wasn't the basis of the suit.

Supposedly the basis of the suit was that there was less than 50 percent
beef. Tells us a good deal about what's wrong with the legal profession
in the US that the firm filing suit didn't first determine whether that
was in fact the case.

On 2011-05-29, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:

> beef. Tells us a good deal about what's wrong with the legal profession
> in the US that the firm filing suit didn't first determine whether that
> was in fact the case.

The whole legal profession has lost its mind. There are now what are
called copyright trolls, companies that are simply filing threatening
lawsuits over copyright infringements on behalf of the companies that
know little or nothing about them. These intimidation suits, one's
the plaintiff is likely to settle out of court to avoid further fees,
have become an industry unto itself. One judge jes threw out a whole
slew of them cuz the legal company filing the suits did not hold any
legal right to the copyrights. That company is refiling in a
different district.

Too many lawyers being pumped out on the street and not enough cases,
so they're inventing them. Worse, the lawyers all move to places like
CA where they think they'll get rich and live in grand style. So,
there's a surplus of lawyers in CA while N Dakota goes a beggin'.



nb

On 29 May 2011 12:40:59 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:

> So, there's a surplus of lawyers in CA while N Dakota goes a beggin'.

What ever happened to the status of being a big frog in a small pond?

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On May 29, 3:41*am, "J. Clarke" <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <irsfal$5u...@dont-email.me>, nunyabidnits@eternal-
> september.invalid says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Re: abadafd4-7e9c-40d6-86da-0feeb8908...@h36g2000pro.googlegroups.com
> > spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 27, 11:06 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > >> Taco Bell responds to the shakedown lawyers who sued them
> > >> here:
>
> > > Did they sue them over the beef, or over the water and the oat
> > > "seasoning"? I'm still trying to figure out the (Wheat) Oats.
>
> > > Seasoned Beef:
>
> > > Beef, Water, Seasoning [Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper,
> > > Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar,
> > > Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic Powder,
> > > Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder
> > > (Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast,
> > > Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphates.
> > > CONTAINS SOYBEANS, WHEAT
>
> > The beef is the beef. Everything following that word is seasoning. However I
> > think it would be more honest to admit that some of the seasoning is for
> > texture rather than flavor.
>
> > They can get dinged for not revealing potential allergens in the content,
> > which this list contains, but AFAIK that wasn't the basis of the suit.
>
> Supposedly the basis of the suit was that there was less than 50 percent
> beef. *Tells us a good deal about what's wrong with the legal profession
> in the US that the firm filing suit didn't first determine whether that
> was in fact the case.

To list ingredients in that order there would have to be more than 50%
beef, but there could be 40% water and 9.82% seasoning.

"spamtrap1888" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > > Seasoned Beef:
>>
>> > > Beef, Water, Seasoning [Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper,
>> > > Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar,
>> > > Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic
>> > > Powder,
>> > > Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder
>> > > (Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast,
>> > > Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphates.
>> > > CONTAINS SOYBEANS, WHEAT


> To list ingredients in that order there would have to be more than 50%
> beef, but there could be 40% water and 9.82% seasoning.

How do you arrive at 50% or more? If you have 18 ingredients, there could
be 10% beef and the other 90% split amongst the rest.

On Sun, 29 May 2011 02:27:58 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:

> Come to the Seattle area. You'll see so many Starbucks you'll get confused!
> There is one in the Safeway and just across the street is a free standing
> one. Walk out the door of the Safeway and you can see it!

In downtown Austin there are 3 in one area. One right across the
street from the other at the most busily walked intersection in
Austin. Then 80 yards up the street is another one. there's probably
more that I don't know about in the bottoms of some of the larger
buildings.

-sw

On Sat, 28 May 2011 22:39:23 -0500, Nunya Bidnits wrote:

> Re: [email protected]
> notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>> business practice of overselling their franchises, so as to all but
>> ensure failure.
>
> If that is true, why don't most of the Taco Bell restaurants around here
> fail?
>
> And why would they want to "all but ensure failure" of their franchises?
> That's silly.
>
> Most businesses realize that a bunch of corpses of former restaurants
> littering the landscape isn't good for business.

they prefer to litter the landscape with the corpses of former customers.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 29 May 2011 06:41:26 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> Supposedly the basis of the suit was that there was less than 50 percent
> beef. Tells us a good deal about what's wrong with the legal profession
> in the US that the firm filing suit didn't first determine whether that
> was in fact the case.

Supposedly they had it testing by an independent lab. I'd like to
know the story behind what went wrong. At this point, I think it was
just a publicity stunt staged by Taco Bell themselves.

If somebody wants to pick on Tacos, attack Jack in the Box. I don't
think they use the word "beef" though.

Heard this directive from the manager yelling to his crew in back one
night at Taco Bell just before I was placing my order, "Take it easy
on the beef. We don't want to have to cook any more tonight".

A conversation with the blubbering manager ensued and I was given
twice the food I ordered (4 tacos and 2 burrito supreme's) and a free
drink (which in my case is always water, so no big deal there).

-sw

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>
> And why would they want to "all but ensure failure" of their franchises?
> That's silly.

That's the business model of multi-level marketing schemes
(a.k.a. network marketing). They make their money off of
selling the "business opportunity", motivational tapes, etc.
If anybody turns a profit, they make money off that too,
but somebody's got to bust their ass off to do that.

http://mlm-thetruth.com/

Taco Bell isn't multi-level marketing, but having a high
failure rate among franchisees is not always an irrational
or unprofitable business model.

Re: [email protected]
notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2011-05-29, Nunya Bidnits <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Most businesses realize that a bunch of corpses of former restaurants
>> littering the landscape isn't good for business.
>
> That may be the case now, I'm no expert. Take a trip up El Camino
> Real in the SFBA and look at all the lil' adobe mission style bldgs
> that were once Taco Bell's in the late 80s and early 90s. There's one
> about every 2-3 miles, none of them now operating TBs.

Around here, most such buildings were replaced with nearby upgraded
structures, and the businesses did not fail.


>Subway did the
> same thing, so many in fact, they suffered serious lawsuits by
> franhise buyers who hadda sue the crap outta the parent company to get
> them to stop them saturatiing territories. Don't tell me you haven't
> heard of the Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks.

You weren't talking about Subway or Starbucks. The subject was Taco Bell.
Yum! Brands owns them along with several other highly successful fast food
brands, and has a lifetime contract with Pepsico.

Read for yourself... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yum!_Brands

This isn't a franchise scamming operation like Subway.

>
>> conditions and demographic shifts which cannot always be accurately
>> predicted.
>
> Sure pal, and I gotta bridge I can sell you cheap.

And facts remain facts regardless of what you choose to believe. Demographic
and market shift does indeed account for the reason behind most of the
closures and moves of major franchised individual operations. Decisions on
both openings and closings are meticulously researched in advance by some of
the best marketing professionals in the business. They don't screw up often.