In May, an African American media mogul whose holdings include The Weather Channel, Entertainment Studios and a collection of broadcast television stations including Hawaii’s ABC affiliate sued one of the world’s biggest quick-service restaurant companies for racial discrimination.
It was a whopping $10 billion lawsuit, filed in response to what was perceived as an unacceptable level of advertising commitment the QSR giant has given to his broadcast and cable properties.
On Tuesday (11/30), U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin, who is based in Los Angeles, ruled on the matter. And, it’s a big win for McDonald’s.
In a six-page order, Olguin moved forward with McDonald’s Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss the case, while leaving Entertainment Studios Networks Inc., et. al., open to file a Second Amended Complaint.
That said, if Allen’s legal counsel wishes to do so, it faces a heavy burden. “Plaintiffs
should carefully evaluate the issues noted in this Order and the contentions set forth in
defendant’s Motion,” Olguin ruled. “For example, the court is skeptical that plaintiffs have pleaded enough facts to support … ‘intent to discriminate on the basis of race.'”
In its First Amended Complaint, Allen’s groups collectively alleged that they “attempted many times over the years to contract with McDonald’s for advertising.” But, McDonald’s refused.” These refusals to contract “occurred within the past two years.”
Olguin determined, however, that “the only supporting allegations appear to be that “[s]ince Allen acquired Weather Group [in 2018], marketing representatives for Weather Group have pitched the Weather Channel to McDonald’s ad agency.”
As such, Olguin said, “These allegations appear to be insufficient to establish an attempt to create a contractual relationship.” He cited a 2006 case that saw Domino’s Pizza battle McDonald’s in making that determination.
Olguin’s ruling also questioned Allen’s statement that, as McDonald’s advertises with “similarly-situated, white-owned networks,” his properties are being discriminated against. In particular, Olguin believes “there are few details regarding the comparator networks.”
As such, Allen’s case fails to allege sufficient facts “that would support an inference that
defendants intentionally and purposefully discriminated against them,” Olguin declared.
What’s the next possible move for Allen’s legal counsel? A second amended complaint “attempting to cure the deficiencies” of the prior complaint Olguin dismissed can be filed with the Central District of California Federal Court. But, it has until December 10 to do so.
If that happens, McDonald’s attorneys on December 16 at 10am Pacific can participate in a discussion with the court on another Motion to Dismiss the complaint from Allen.
An answer to the second amended complaint would be due to the court by December 23.
In a statement sent to Reuters, Paul, Weiss Partner Loretta Lynch, representing McDonald’s, said, “This case is about revenue, not race. We believe there is no evidence supporting this meritless case.”
The lawsuit against McDonald’s saw Entertainment Studios Networks Inc., Weather Group LLC and Weather Group LLC as Plaintiffs.
