[Svartalfiar]

For the sake of argument, suppose he played with toys from Hasbro. Does this mean that Milton Bradley can complain that he's not playing with their toys?

Not the same. If Hasbro gave him free toys to review, or paid him to review their stuff, then he goes and presents a supposedly unbiased review saying their toys are better, that's the issue. If someone is paying you (giving you free review samples) to advertise their product (which is what these reviews are), then per 'truth in advertising' laws, you have to have a disclaimer that you are paid for your endorsement.

[Political Junkie Too]

I agree with your post.

That said, we're talking about a 7-year-old. The kid was just playing with toys. Whatever business arrangements were in place were done by the parents.

It' not even a case of parents being responsible for the actions of minors. Usually, "minors" in this case refer to teens who get in trouble. This is a 7-year-old. It's like the stories of kindergarten kids kissing, and the boy being charged with sexual harassment.

Still, the full article never mentions brands, only Walmart, Toys R Us, Chuck E. Cheese (restaurant), Colgate (toys?) and Nickelodeon. Mostly distributors Who is the harmed party?

-PJ