[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

[Svartalfiar]

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.

Yes, and those business arrangements should be including fine print that tells the viewer that these toys are provided by the companies that the kid supposedly likes the best. It doesn't matter that the minor kid doesn't even know this, the parents, who are the actual ones benefiting from the free samples (not having to buy their kid any toys), are the same ones promoting his opinions and thereby promoting those companies.