1
Chapter 42
Ethics and Social Responsibility of Business
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
42.1 False Advertising
No. Papa John’s advertising slogan “Better Ingredients. Better Pizza” is not false advertising. One form of
non-actionable statements of general opinion under Lanham Act has been referred to as “puffery.” Prosser
and Keeton on the Law of Torts (5th edition) define “puffing” as “a seller’s privilege to lie his head off,
so long as he says nothing specific, on the theory that no reasonable man would believe him, or that no
reasonable man would be influenced by such talk.” Bisecting the slogan “Better Ingredients. Better
42.2 Bribery
No, Sun-Diamond did not violate the federal anti-bribery and gratuity statute by giving items to the U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture. A criminal conviction under the federal anti-bribery and gratuity statute requires
a showing of a direct nexus between the value conferred on the public official and the official act
performed by the public official in favor of the giver. The anti-bribery and gratuity statute requires more
than a showing that a gift was motivated, at least in part, by the recipient’s capacity to exercise
governmental power or influence in the donor’s favor without necessarily showing that it was connected
to a particular official act. This meaning of the statute is incorrect because of the peculiar results that it
would produce: It would criminalize, for example, token gifts to the president based on his official
position and not linked to any identifiable act—such as the replica jerseys given by championship sports
teams each year during ceremonial White House visits. There must be proof of a direct nexus between the
gratuity given and the public official’s act before the federal anti-bribery and gratuity statute is violated.
Because no such direct nexus was shown in this case, there is no violation of the federal anti-bribery and
gratuity statute. Is it ethical for a public employee to accept a gift by a company or other party when the
1402, 1999 U.S. Lexis 3001 (Supreme Court of the United States)
42.3 Liability
Yes, an ethicist applying the utilitarian approach to the question of bankruptcy might approve of the
2
their terrible loss. The initial order of relief granted by a bankruptcy court freezes all such proceedings
pending in other courts. The benefits (the good) from filing in bankruptcy include preserving the assets of
for the Southern District of New York)
VII. Answers to Ethics Cases
42.4 Ethics Case
day.” What the plaintiff has not done, however, is to address the role that a number of other factors other
than diet may come to play in obesity and the health problems of which the plaintiff complains. In order
to allege that McDonald’s products were a significant factor in the plaintiff’s obesity and health problems,
the complaint must address these other variables and, if possible, eliminate them or show that a McDiet is
food products that could cause obesity. As required by law, McDonalds and other fast food restaurants
must now disclose calorie and other information about its food products. McDonald’s does not, however,
disclose at its restaurants that “super heavy users”—defined as those persons who eat McDonald’s ten
42.5 Ethics Case
The question as to whether companies owe a duty of social responsibility to provide an affirmative action
program is dependent upon which ethical view a moral judge takes of the corporate purpose. If
additional burden. The moral position for affirmative action is based on a restitution theory that,
unfortunately, looks for relief from those who did not cause the loss. The U.S. Constitution demands
equality, equal protection, and an ethical position. To suspend such equality for the purposes of restitution
seems fair if the party required to contribute caused the loss. In this case, the training program is legal
3
conditions, and benefits of employment, the court reasoned that: “This situation was one the statute was
intended to remedy; the method chosen was agreed to by the union as representative of all workers; the
42.6 Ethics Case
Whether or not Warner-Lambert acted unethically would depend upon the extent to which it knew the
claims it was making were false. Ethicists would point out that one does not have to have perfect vision
and information in order to recommend a product. The state of science is such that medical positions
Circuit)