Posted on 10/24/2017 9:02:53 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Share Share Tweet Share Pin It Email Comment Print
It’s an important distinction, actually. Photo: Elliot Elliot/Getty Images/Johner RF A man in Quebec has filed a class-action lawsuit claiming a Canadian airline inflicted actionable damages by serving him a free glass of sparkling wine that wasn’t Champagne. A skimpy pour isn’t what outraged Daniel Macduff on his Sunwing flight to Cuba for a holiday getaway — it was the fact that he thought he’d been promised Champagne, but he instead spied a bottle that wasn’t marked with the style’s protected appellation.
The airline, you see, offers “Champagne service” and “Champagne vacations.” Naturally, you might think that means Champagne — a protected term that applies only to wine from the region, not a catch-all term for bubbly wine. Macduff’s lawyer tells the National Post that this suit isn’t about the “subtle differences between effervescent wines,” but rather “truthful advertising in a highly competitive market.” The budget airline is collecting a windfall by foisting cheaper wine onto excited passengers. “You’re trying to lure consumers by marketing something, and you’re not giving them that something,” he says. “It’s a dishonest practice.”
The airline says in a statement that these are merely words describing the “experience-enhancing features” passengers can expect on flights, not references to the exact drinks being served. Alas, the Post points out that certain Sunwing ads literally said complimentary “glass of Champagne.”
The airline has since scrubbed most of those ads from its marketing materials, and the website’s new preferred verbiage is a “welcome glass of sparkling wine.” Meanwhile, Macduff’s lawyer claims that he’s found about 1,600 more people who say that, as a matter of fact, they also feel cheated by Sunwing’s deceptive wine wording.
“A man in Quebec has filed a class-action lawsuit claiming a Canadian airline inflicted actionable damages by serving him a free glass of sparkling wine that wasn’t Champagne.”
You know a society has become soft when there are lawsuits like this.
Please don't be MAD at me.. Last Tuesday I filled your WATERBED with a ... DOMESTIC Bordeaux!!
Since no one paid for the Champagne there can be no actual damages. It was a gift.
This D-bag is going to Cuba for holiday, where he will be figuratively raped by communists while paying outrageous sums for crappy hotels, blackouts and bad food - and he's upset by a glass of sparkling wine?
He's mentally ill.
Pins & Needles
Needles & Pins!
Anybody going to Cuba who isn’t drinking Papa Dobles is a poof. Ignore them.
Going to cuba? I guess he likes to look at slaves while drinking champagne.
If the advertisement said ‘Champagne’, then it’s a misleading statement. To also be correct...the only real difference between Champagne and Sparkling Wine...is that Champagne has to be manufactured in a particular region of France. If you don’t make it there....it can only be Sparkling Wine. Otherwise, it’s the same stuff.
If you imported Champagne into the US or Canada....it wouldn’t be a cheap deal.
the very particular customer should hope that he wasn’t served California Champagne, because California Champagne, is, indeed, legally a Champagne
“...in 2005, the U.S. and the EU reached an agreement. In exchange for easing trade restrictions on wine, the American government agreed that California Champagne, Chablis, Sherry and a half-dozen other ‘semi-generic’ names would no longer appear on domestic wine labels – that is unless a producer was already using one of those names.
If a producer had used – or abused from the French point of view – one of those names prior to March 10th, 2006, they could continue to use the name on their label indefinitely.”
https://vinepair.com/wine-blog/loophole-california-champagne-legal/
French Canadian no doubt
They are so prissy
I like their women though
And they liked me
Strip joints in Montreal ain’t like here
Lol
Nostalgia from the 80s in before the hellfire scolds
“Needles & Pins”
“Because of all my pride
The tears I gotta hide”
Another Commie-wannabe champagne drinker and fool from Canada.
This is a shockingly stupid waste of the court’s time. If he didn’t like the flight, he shouldn’t use them again, but the monetary value of the difference between what they served and the cheapest real champagne is negligible.
WTF ever, idiot
It’s grape juice infused with C02...
OMG! The Hindenburg, now this! Oh the humanity!
"Mr. Simpson, this is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my case against The Never-Ending Story!"
You say "soft," I say "predatory" and "too many lawyers."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.