I’m willing to bet money that CSPI doesn’t get very far at all with this. Except in cases where state laws may provide them some leeway (California), they’ve no case, unless they’re holding something back they didn’t state in the Intent to Sue (read it) or in the litigation director’s statement.

In a nutshell, their case is this: McDonald’s Happy Meals are unhealthy, despite their supposed efforts to step up nutrition. Think what you like about that, but the bottom line: they’d given a pledge, not a contract. Nothing here illegal so far. And toys have nothing to do with nutrition. We could assume that the FDA recommendations on nutrition might take the force of law, but this would still have nothing to do with the toys. In fact, in the latter scenario, the toys would be a boon to CSPI.

CSPI has made it fairly clear that their problem isn’t the toy; it’s the nutrition. That won’t do them well in court, given that their only reference to law and regulation is regarding nutrition, not toys.

Then there’s their other point: McDonald’s practice of selling toys develops brand loyalty in kids too young to understand what is happening to them. I quote: “dangling toys in front of children is illegal, regardless of what meal the child actually gets.”

Here’s the thing: no, it’s not. Not even remotely. And “pester power” is not a legal term that will get you far in most courts of law. Besides, McDonald’s has enough money to take this to SCOTUS if necessary. I’ve gotten to personally witness the judges openly mock and dismiss similar cases, all depending on supposed immoral contracts or breaches of contract. CSPI had better prepare to be ridiculed.

http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-text-dynamic-arrays/E9D8660ADDBB36C7802573F500587F26?openDocument