McLibel Case Study

I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION/ ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVE

McLibel was a true "David and Goliath" battle. McDonald's filed court action for libel against two environmental activists Helen Steel, a former London gardener and David Morris, a single father and former postman who both belonged to a very small London-based group called "London Greenpeace".

London Greenpeace launched the International Day of Action Against McDonald's in 1985 while they produced and handed a 6-sided factsheet called "What's Wrong With McDonald's? - Everything they don't want you to know" in 1986. The leaflet made allegations on almost all aspects of the corporation's business. McDonald's were accused of exploiting children with advertising, promoting an unhealthy diet, exploiting their staff and being responsible for environmental damage and ill treatment of animals.

In 1989, as the campaign grew and was taken up by more and more groups around the world, McDonald responded by producing their own 'McFact cards' detailing their position on many of the accusations made in the leaflet. They also decided to take extreme action against London Greenpeace by assigning private agents to spy in London Greenpeace in order to gather evidence by joining along in their meetings; the agents broke into their offices, take pictures and stole documents.

McDonald's decided to brought libel proceedings against five London Greenpeace supporters, Paul Gravett, Andrew Clarke and Jonathan O'Farrell, as well as Helen Steel and David Morris, for distributing the pamphlet on the streets of London. Although none of these individuals was alleged to be the author of the pamphlet, and the leaflets were distributed in a number of other countries, the group will face large financial penalties and a difficult court battle unless they retracted and apologized for its content and stop its distribution. Three of the charged individuals; Gravett, Clarke and O'Farrell felt that they had no choice but to apologize as demanded while Steel and Morris refused to back down and decided to fight and continue the case.

However, Steel and Morris had no formal post-secondary school education, and has a few financial resources. They were also denied of legal aid by the courts on the basis that it was not policy for libel cases. Although the pair were believed to be no legal match for McDonald's legal assets, they represented themselves, receiving much free legal advice, and doing enormous amounts of research in their spare time. McDonald's spent millions of pounds, while the protesters had £30,000 raised from public donations.

A major mistake by McDonald's and their lawyers is they asserted that all claims in the pamphlet were false. Although some of the claims were actually quite strong while other claims were less controversial. The company found itself on trial before the British people and the world. The case became a media circus, especially when top McDonald's executives were forced to take the stand and be questioned by the two non-lawyers.

In June 1997, Mr. Justice Bell delivered a more than 1000-page decision largely in favor of McDonald's while Steel and Morris had proven the truth of three fifths of the claims in the original leaflet but were found guilty of libel on several points. Thus, Justice Bell noted that McDonald's did endanger the health of their workers and customers by a "misleading advertising", that they "exploit children", that they are "culpably responsible" in the infliction of unnecessary cruelty to animals, and that they are "antipathetic" to pay their workers low wages. Furthermore, although the decision awarded £60,000 to McDonald's, the 314-day trial cost them more than £10,000,000 in legal fees, with the editorial coverage of the court's proceedings exposing the issues raised by Steel and Morris before the eye of world's media.

The McLibel case was recognized by many as the biggest corporate PR disaster in history despite McDonald's directions to the rest of their empire that it was a "local problem" that had a massive effect upon them, then and now.

II. SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS (LIE)

LEGAL

British laws place the burden of proof on defendants rather than plaintiffs. In the McLibel trial, this meant that McDonald's did not have to prove that the defendants had deliberately circulated false information. Instead, the defendants carried the burden of proving that what they said was true.

In an 800-page ruling, Justice Rodger Bell undertook a piece-by-piece dissection of a four-page fact sheet titled "What's Wrong With McDonald's," published in 1986 by a group whose members included defendants Helen Steel and Dave Morris. Bell found that there was evidence to support all of the arguments made in the leaflet, but ruled against the defendants anyway because, in his opinion, they had "exaggerated" their claims against the food chain.

Under U.S. law, of course, the outcome of a libel trial would not revolve around the question of whether the judge shares the opinions of the people who are being sued. The fundamental issue in this country is whether people have the right to hold different opinions, and to express and debate those differences freely before the court of public opinion.

After the long court battles, Mr. Justice Bell ruled in favor of Steel and Morris in three contexts but was found guilty of libel on several points. First, the court found it was proven that McDonald's exploited children with its advertising and marketing. The advertising was, in large part, directed at children to pressure them to pester their parents into buying McDonald's food. Second, it was proven that McDonald's paid low wages which depressed wages in Britain's catering trade and that McDonald's was strongly opposed to unionization. Lastly, it was proven that the animals which became McDonald's products were cruelly treated and McDonald's was "culpably responsible" for such treatment. The Appeal Court not only agreed with these conclusions, but also found it was proven that McDonald's subjected its employees to poor working conditions. Justice Bell's decision awarded £60,000 to McDonald's because some of Steel and Morris point were found libelous but the 314-day trial cost them more than £10,000,000 in legal fees.

Steel and Morris also appealed to the Law Lords that their right to legal aid to ensure a fair trial had been denied. When that body refused to hear the case, the pair filed a