Case analysis 3 Lawsuit Claims Dunkin\’ Donuts Misleads About Blueber

Case analysis 3
<
<
Lawsuit Claims Dunkin\’ Donuts Misleads About Blueberries
<
After a complaint was filed in federal court alleging that Dunkin\’ Brands\’ Dunkin\’ Donuts\’ steak sandwiches
<
do not actually contain \”steak,\” a new suit makes similar charges about its blueberry bakery items. The
<
plaintiff claims that the coffee chain\’s various blueberry-named bakery products, including Glazed
<
Blueberry doughnuts, Blueberry Butternut doughnuts, and Blueberry Crumb Cake doughnuts, contain
<
imitation blueberries \”that highly resemble actual blueberries due to their round shape and blue color.\”
<
Lawyers claim that if their client had known the products did not contain blueberries, he either would not
<
have purchased them or would have paid significantly less for the products. They seek in excess of $5
<
million to remedy the situation.
<
What\’s in the doughnuts?
<
While Dunkin\’ Donuts lists blueberries as an ingredient in its blueberry muffins, none of its blueberry
<
doughnuts list the fruit as an ingredient. The company\’s various \”blueberry\” doughnut flavors appear to use a mix of non-fruit ingredients to simulate blueberries in the baked treats. The lawsuit charges that this
<
is an attempt to deceive consumers.
<
The lawsuit contends that blueberries have health benefits that consumers would be willing to pay more
<
for. It also notes that when buying a doughnut in-store, consumers see the blueberry doughnuts displayed
<
alongside other products, including various doughnuts and muffins, that contain the fruit they are named
<
for.
<
Answer the following questions:
<
1. Who has standing in this case?
<
2. Could you join the lawsuit if you are offended by the lack of actual blueberries in Dunkin\’ Donuts\’
<
baked goods even if you have never bought a blueberry product from Dunkin\’ Donuts? Why or why not?
<
3. How do you think a judge would rule in this case? Why?
<
<
Case analysis 4
<
<
United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178 (2011)
<
Marcus Barrington, Christopher Jacquette, and Lawrence Secrease were undergraduate students at
<
Florida A&M University (FAMU). They concocted a scheme to access FAMU’s Internet-based grading
<
system. They went to the registrar’s office and secretly installed keylogger software on FAMU’s
<
computers. The keylogger software recorded the keystrokes made by registrar employees as they signed
<
into their computers, capturing their usernames and passwords. That data was automatically transmitted
<
to various email accounts, including Barrington’s personal email address.
<
With the usernames and passwords, Barrington and others, using their own computers and FAMU’s
<
computers, accessed FAMU’s grading system and changed course grades for themselves and other
<
students. Ultimately, the group made more than 650 unauthorized grade changes for at least 90 students.
<
Eventually, a professor uncovered the scheme, and police and the FBI were notified.
<
Barrington, Jacquette, and Secrease were indicted by a grand jury and charged with the federal crimes of
<
fraud and identity theft. Jacquette and Secrease entered into a plea agreement and were each sentenced
<
to 22 months in prison. Barrington went to trial and denied involvement in the scheme. Jacquette was a
<
witness against Barrington at Barrington’s trial. Barrington was convicted on all counts and sentenced to
<
7 years in prison.
<
Answer the following questions:
<
1. What crimes were the men charged with in this case?
<
2. What level of crime (felony, misdemeanor, infraction) were the men charged with in this case? How
<
do you know?
<
3. Analyze the elements of crime (actus reus+mens rea=crime) in this situation.
<
4. What burden of proof did the government have?
<
5. Barrington received a much harsher sentence than the others. Should Barrington have also accepted
<
a plea deal for less time in prison? Why or why not?
<