Legal hero sues theater chain Cinemark for alleged beer size fraud
A new class-action suit alleges the theater chain is selling "24 ounce" beer cups that only hold 22 ounces of liquid
Aux News CINEMARK
Because there must always, somewhere, be a pop culture lawsuit designed to make the rest of us gently roll our eyes—and the “Yesterday used Ana de Armas to trick us into watching Yesterday!” people have finally settled out of court—we’re very excited to inform you of a new potential class action suit kicking off in Texas this week. Per THR, this particular lawsuit is being fired against theater chain Cinemark, and features some very serious allegations of what we can only think of as “beer crime.”
Specifically, Texas resident Shane Waldrop has filed a lawsuit alleging that, after suspecting something was amiss with the $8.80 Large draft beer he bought during a recent excursion to a Cinemark cinema—a.k.a., The Cathedral of Fluid Misrepresentation—Waldrop proceeded to take the cup home, measure its carrying capacity, and came to the demoralizing conclusion that the alleged 24-ounce container could only hold 22 ounces of liquid. (The lawsuit doesn’t explain exactly how this experiment was performed, which is tragic.) Waldrop then did what any reasonable human being would do in these circumstances: Launched a lawsuit alleging that the chain had committed “negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment and a violation of Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act.”
Waldrop and his attorneys are seeking both an end to the labeling practice, as well as a “disgorgement of profits,” the latter of which will hopefully fit in a 22-ounce theater cup. The suit also indignantly points out that Cinemark, like most theater chains, tries to sell you on the big size of drinks by suggesting they’re a better value, but, well, we’ll let the actual lawsuit spell out the cold hard math for you:
This is especially misleading because the 24 oz drink should provide a deal for consumers over the 20 oz drink’s price: $0.37 per ounce vs. $0.39 per ounce. But due to the actual volume of 22 oz available in the “24 oz drink,” the price is $0.40 per ounce, making the larger drink more expensive per ounce, which is not a deal at all.
Not a deal at all. Dear god, where can the chicanery go next? Will we wake up tomorrow, only to learn that the Dune 2 popcorn buckets are no longer large enough to contain an entire internet’s worth of rapidly developing sexual fetishes? Horrors never cease.
So far, the “class-action” part of the suit is sounding pretty lonely, although, in a powerful sentence, THR notes that “The lawyers for Waldrop also seek to represent other purchasers of the 24 ounce cup.” (Meanwhile, it’s not clear at present if Waldrop also believes these hijinx apply to the chain’s soft drink cups, which are opaque, in addition to the transparent plastic beer cups he was personally measuring. How deep does the rabbit hole go, Cinemark? Are you coming for our precious Coke Zero next?!)
91 Comments
I love that this article is all pearl clutching over the idea of this lawsuit but it seems pretty legitimate:They advertise one size and sell you anotherThe discrepancy results in you paying more per ounce rather than lessIs the author trying to defend Cinemark here like this isn’t a bad thing? I am completely confused.
No, it’s not defending Cinemark, it’s mocking how someone is starting a class action lawsuit over 2 OUNCES of beer. The dude’s legally in the right (supposing his measurements are right) but like… c’mon, you’ve got to see the humor in this right?
I really hope he wins – if Cinemark are shorting people on the drinks, does anyone really think they’ve somehow maintained scrupulous honesty about their other practices?Besides, it’s not just about the amount in that particular cup – t’s the fact that they’re advertising the worse-value product as the better-value product, which is inarguably dishonest and just as inarguably dickish. However, we’re talking about US enforcement of consumer rights, so he’ll definitely lose. The verdict will be that it’s the customer’s responsibility to bring a measuring jug and a calculator wherever they go, and that the vendor has no responsibilities at all.(Edit: I may be over-wary of corporate wrongdoing after finishing Fallout season 1)
I think that partially depends on whether they’re actually marketing the larger size as a better value, or if they’re counting on it to be inferred by the buyer because that’s how it usually works.I think the tone of the article is that while Cinemark needs to relabel its cups as holding 22 ounces, a class-action lawsuit may be a bit over the top. Give everyone involved a free beer and move on.If I’m Cinemark I plead ignorance. “We ordered 24 ounce cups from Aramark and they brought us 22 ouncers. We never thought to measure. Oops, honest mistake.”
I think the tone of the article is that while Cinemark needs to relabel its cups as holding 22 ounces, a class-action lawsuit may be a bit over the top. Give everyone involved a free beer and move on.Although it’s possible that simply being called out on it will lead them to resolve the issue with a mea culpa like you said, the unfortunate truth is that in situations like this the only way to hold a corporation’s feet to the fire is often to go the legal route. It absolutely feels like overkill but it might just be the right amount of kill given how shitty and shady corporations are.
Oh I know. Specifics of this case aside, legal action is the default course because otherwise you’re ignored. But our system allows anyone to sue for anything with no penalty for absurdity so it’s hard to not make fun of some of the lawsuits you read about.
“a class-action lawsuit may be a bit over the top”I think there might be some confusion about what a class-action lawsuit is. It’s just a way of consolidating lawsuits that would/could otherwise be filed individually and gum up the legal system with redundant evidence. It’s not OTT if all of the plaintiffs in the class were affected by the deception. It might end up that everyone involved gets a free beer if that’s what the damages turn out to be, but it’s still a case of each individual getting their individual damages owed.“If I’m Cinemark I plead ignorance.”It wouldn’t work. An honest mistake is still a mistake, and it looks like the claim is one of negligence, which includes mistakes. It might be an honest mistake but you’re still responsible for your mistakes, honest or not.
Fair enough – has the issue occurred at any other branches? Because that would be the difference between an honest mistake and a business policy.
“c’mon, you’ve got to see the humor in this right?”
Actually… no. Maybe if the scales in this country weren’t so fucking titled to corporations in the first place, but at this point the only way to hold one accountable for anything is to sue it. I’m guessing this kind of bullshit is rampant, and I’m glad that someone is calling them on it.
When you say it’s only tWo OuNcEs!!! it doesn’t sound like much. When you say it they’re selling you nearly 10% less product than you paid for it sounds a lot worse.Cinemark fucked around, played stupid games, and hopefully they are entering the find out phase.
This is exactly what the class action system is created for. It is in no way large enough for any one person to actually bother with but when it is spread out over the 86 theaters that Cinemark operates in Texas, and the fact that each location sells… hundreds of beers a day, that 2 ounces very quickly adds up to thousands and thousands of dollars.
It’s 2 ounces per person per purchase. That’s a lot of money this theater chain is making off of deceiving the public. That’s not really that humorous at all. This is literally what consumer protection laws are for.
He’s not suing over 2oz. of beer. He’s suing because he’s being ripped off.
Legally in the right is the best kind of in the right to be!
The dude is right though. 2oz per beer might not be a lot but multiply that by the thousands they sell and it’s legit. The article is trying to be funny but coming off like an old boomer who hates the kids.
It’s 2-ounces of beer to Waldrop but to the company that adds up per purchase. Why is it funny? Someone needs to stand up so company’s don’t try to skim on products to invent some huge margin for themselves. People saying it’s not a big deal are naive.
Would you have the same opinion here if they were serving beer in a full 24-ounce glass, but every 13th one was empty even though the customer still gets charged?
If I’m at the point I’m drinking 13 beers in a movie theater, I wouldn’t care about much, because to be in that situation I’m assuming I would be at rock bottom.
We will hopefully eventually reach a point where selling someone 24oz of soda with no booze in it is itself criminal.Imagine for a second chicken was only sold at a reasonable price in huge buckets containing like 6X the amount of meat one was meant to consume over the course of chiken dinner.
“We will hopefully eventually reach a point where selling someone 24oz of soda with no booze in it is itself criminal.”Or maybe we just let people make their own choices on this sort of shit.
You definitely need some booze in your soda.
Couldn’t hurt
Cheers!
In general yes, but the largest size should not be significantly different in cost/volume than the smallest. There is no reduction in cost to serving an extra large soda or a small soda.
Respectfully, I figured the booze bit was a clue that I wasn’t totally serious. As a drunk and illegal drug user I’m not really a prohibition guy. That said I dunno, I feel like we’re about to get Trump back because of people’s right to choose. Ironically possibly dooming democracy! If you want to know where my post was coming from, my father is diabetic and I recently visited him and he’s chugging like four 20oz pepsis a day and downing entamann’s like there’s no tomorrow. The closest thing to real food he had in the house was hot dogs. It’s just upsetting.
You’re not wrong, you’re just not noticing that the AVClub of late has consistently confused what the correct target for snark should be, and instead just sprays it everywhere, completely devoid of any considered editorial intent.
That’s just Ragebaiting 101: “You can’t appeal to everyone, so best to piss off all of them.”
I usually find these suits to be either pointless wastes of time or cash grabs and usually due more to misunderstanding than outright fraud, but if you say you are selling me 24 oz of something and you are only selling me 22 oz, AND you (probably) stick a “BEST VALUE!” sticker next to the larger size when it literally isn’t because you inflated the size, then you are intentionally trying to deceive me and take money from me and that should be punished.
You don’t fuck around with weights and measures, that’s for damn sure. It’s one of the oldest sets of laws societies have had, because, yeah, naturally one of the most common crimes was short-sticking customers…and that tended to upset the foundations of an economy. There’s mediaeval cloth markets that had official rulers defining a unit bolted to the walls because everyone got fucked over, and then there’s the baker’s dozen. Hell, half the engineering in a petrol bowser goes into making sure that, if its flow regulation fails, the customer gets more than is measured, not less.
I’ll speak for all US citizens when I ask, “WTF is a petrol bowser?”
Maybe?
Petrol bowser? I think we’ve found our culprit boys, let’s get him!
Definitely a “two things” situation.1. On its face seems like yet another silly class action lawsuit2. I want the amount of beer they advertised and I paid for, and so does everybody else, so logically I get what they’re going for here
In other news, American beer drinkers never get a PINT of beer in a pint glass because American pint glasses are 16oz to the top. And exactly zero bars fill their “pint” glasses to the top because they would be sloppy to serve, and most beer has foam that keeps you from filling the liquid to the top anyway.
Your second point wasn’t verified. They didn’t measure the 20 Oz cup. I’m willing to bet the 20 Oz cup holds 18.
Like all class action suits, even if they win, the majority of the beer will just go to the lawyers, and the rest of us plebs will be lucky to get a free flight glass as recompense.
The lawyers will get millions. The plaintiffs will get a 50% off movie ticket (not valid on Friday/Saturday/Sunday, or for a 3D or IMAX show, subject to availability, must book through the app 30 days ahead).
Only valid for viewing Madam Web
Grounds for a follow-up suit.
Yes, a lawsuit is so ridiculous when a firmly worded letter would have cleared it all up. Maybe even sent out a couple of free movie passes for bringing this oversight to Cinemark’s attention.
Your faith in a corporation to do the right thing in response to anything other than a threat is touching.
I think/hope he’s being sarcastic.
Ah, my sarcasmometer is sometimes off. Here’s hoping!
Wow, a sarcasmometer – that sounds *really* useful.
It apparently didn’t read as the sarcasm intended.
So… Cinemark Texas has potentially defrauded people on millions of purchases and the person this site decides to act like is insane and in the wrong is the person complaining about it?
I’d like the civil penalty to be each complainant gets one shot of beer for each 24 oz cup ordered. Lawyers get a couple of kegs.
Holding businesses accountable is a good thing.
It makes my head hurt that this needs to be said.
The real story here is that Texas actually has a “Deceptive Trade Practices Act”.
They do but its called the “Lazy Yeller Snake Oil salesman act of 1886″
Eh, having lived here for a while now I can confirm Texas is a pretty cut and dried law-and-order state. Perspective on business practices is “okay we’re going to start out giving you the benefit of the doubt, so don’t fuck that up or else.”
I just assume their attitude is “It’s your fault for being taken advantage of plus the sheriff is my brother-in-law and I golf with the DA every other Wednesday. #smallgovernment #freedom”
Perhaps in Mayberry, but Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio are a bit big to operate that way.
Not really. It’s Texas, after all.
Trotsky, J.D. here. Almost every state has one of these, either titled a deceptive practices act, merchandising practices act, or something similar.
I was just making a joke about Texas being pro-business, limited government, etc.
Yeah we could tell by your cashmere sweater vest. Beat it, son.
I think the real story here is that a chain cinema is selling 24oz, or even just 22oz, of beer for $8.80.
Like, damn. I pay that for a simple 16oz pint in my city. I think the plaintiff is getting a pretty good bargain, but then again I haven’t done a lot of beer drinking in Texas.
Should I surmise that it just isn’t very good beer?
I don’t know why the pithy tone.It’s fraud. Shame on Cinemark.
That was an interesting adjective choice.
Eh, I’m down. Fuck that “product shrinkage” shit.
“(The lawsuit doesn’t explain exactly how this experiment was performed, which is tragic.)“Sometimes the AVClub snark runs away from you guys because this line makes little to no sense. Why is it tragic exactly? The guy went home and filled up the cup using a measuring cup of some kind. Did you picture some sort of multi-day experiment or crazy contraption?On another note, this is where they lose the case“This is especially misleading because the 24 oz drink should provide a deal for consumers over the 20 oz drink’s price: $0.37 per ounce vs. $0.39 per ounce. But due to the actual volume of 22 oz available in the “24 oz drink,” the price is $0.40 per ounce, making the larger drink more expensive per ounce, which is not a deal at all.”My bet is if they got the 20 oz beer and took it home its only holds 18 oz of beer and thus the bigger one was still a better value.
Right? Even journalism majors have to take some math and science classes. Not figuring it was done this way is some spent-middle-school-in-lockdown, young end of Gen Z, poorly educated nonsense, and Mr Hughes has been around too long to be that young.
Hahaha, “journalism.”
“My bet is if they got the 20 oz beer and took it home its only holds 18 oz of beer and thus the bigger one was still a better value.”Aw damn!
Problem is I have never seen beer served in a 20 oz cup, it’s either bottle or a pint.
22 oz “tall” glasses are common at chain places, like Buffalo Wild Wings.
Interesting never knew that lol. Also rarely go to chain places.
I’ve bought beer at a Cinemark and it’s definitely not pint glasses. Basically this:
“My bet is if they got the 20 oz beer and took it home its only holds 18 oz of beer and thus the bigger one was still a better value.”This is what I was thinking. I mean, it may mean Cinemark has to relabel all their beer sizes and so the suit may accomplish something, but until someone measures the amount of the 20 oz cup, we don’t know that the “24 oz” cup is not the best value.
Come see Bottomless Pete, nature’s cruelest mistake!
I like the “shrimp fried rice” joke. Reminds me of the non-parallel construction when menus have “beef lasagna” and “vegetarian lasagna”. There never seems to be ground up vegetarians in the latter.
In other news, American beer drinkers never get a PINT of beer in a pint glass because American pint glasses are 16oz to the top. And exactly zero bars fill their “pint” glasses to the top because they would be sloppy to serve, and most beer has foam that keeps you from filling the liquid to the top anyway.
What? Bars definitely serve draft beer filled all the way to the top of the glass. I assume it’s one of the handful of bartender skills they have is to not spill it. When do you see beer sold not to the top of the glass? Beer commercials exclusively showcase beer filled all the way to the top as to not suggest that anyone in the commercial has drank any but think about it…. poured beer in a glass genuinely doesn’t look good if it isn’t filled to the top.
They leave room for the head. Since a pint glass is widest at the top, depending on how foamy the beer is, you may only be getting 14 or 15 ounces. That’s why glasses in the UK are BIGGER than 16 oz and sometimes have a fill line on them, so you know when you are getting what you paid for.
If only there was a solution.
This happens at bars a lot. Their “Pint” glass is only 14 oz, not 16 oz. It’s very easy to see the size difference.
“Dear god, where can the chicanery go next?”I mean okay jokes aside, the movie theater is literally lying to its customers, which is actionable, so…
Yeah, like… Subway got sued for doing the same thing when people realized their footlong sandwiches were like an inch short. It’s genuinely fraudulent marketing.
Imagine my delight upon realizing, after reading the filing, that the Cinemark theater in question is the one in my town.
It’s not all about you, sliceoffriedgold
HOW DARE YOU.
Get over there with a measuring jug, stat!
I’ve tried measuring these types of things before. I’d be willing to bet that while it doesn’t fit 24 oz of a carbonated beverage, it will EXACTLY fit 24 oz of water or other flat fluid. So, if it says 24 oz cup, probably in the clear. If it says 24 oz beer…..probably not.
“Class Action” – That was Porky’s 5, right?
I think this is awesome. Next, let’s sue AMC because a 20-minute ad block (Noovie), three minutes of commercials at the scheduled start time, a promo for the place where you already are, 20+ minutes of trailers, ANOTHER promo about where you already are, and then a THIRD promo about where you already are featuring Nicole Kidman objectively do not “Make Movies Better.”
Regal (the other big chain in the US) also does Noovie. You can’t get away from Maria Menounos (and the plugs for her Heal Squad podcast) wherever you go.
On top of that, how much of the beer is head? I’ve made many a beer tap jockey repour my beer at concerts because they charge $10 for a solo cup of beer that’s 1/3 foam. Nope. Not paying for that. I paid for a full cup, I’m getting a full cup.