McLibel case

The McLibel case is the nickname for a court action filed by McDonald's Corporation against unemployed environmental activists Helen Steel and Dave Morris. The case enjoys the distinction of being the longest-running court action in British history. Although McDonald's technically won their case, the partial nature of the victory and drawn-out litigation have turned the case into a matter of serious embarrassment for the company. Although the company was awarded ₤40,000 by the courts, McDonald's has announced that it has no plans to collect the money. The case is currently on appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

British libel law differs from similar laws in other jurisdictions in many ways. Under British law, the primary purpose of the legal system is to protect the reputation of the accuser. The burden of proving the literal truth of any potentially disparaging statements made against an individual therefore falls to the defendant. For a number of years, McDonald's had successfully used the British libel laws to intimidate critics. During the 1980s, the company threatened to sue more than fifty organizations, including major publications.

Beginning in 1986, London Greenpeace distributed a pamphlet accusing the McDonald's corporation of everything from selling unhealthy food to exploiting its workers and destroying the South American rain forests. In 1990, McDonald's filed suit against two unemployed members of the organization, Steel and Morris, for distributing the pamphlet on the streets of London. They had no post-high school education between them, few resources, and were denied legal aid by the courts. They were not even the authors of the pamphlet they were being sued over.

Accordingly, McDonald's did not expect a legal fight when they threatened the pair. With other activists, they were right. To their great surprise, however, this pair chose to argue the case. Although they were deemed no legal match for McDonald's enormous legal assets, the two pressed on, representing themselves and doing enormous amounts of research.

McDonald's greatest mistake in filing the case was to assert that all of the claims in the pamphlet were false. Although this was a safe accusation with respect to a number of the more propagandist claims, such as those involving the rain forests, some of the other claims were much less controversial. Particularly with regard to those claims involving the health of McDonald's food and labor practices, the corporation suddenly found itself on trial before the British people and the world. The case became a media circus, especially when McDonald's top executives were forced to take the stand and be questioned by the two self-taught lawyers.

In 1994, Justice Roger Bell handed down an 800-page decision in favor of McDonald's. Although this was a technical victory for McDonald's, the case had long since been deemed a public relations disaster by the company. Making matters worse, Bell found that the defendants had proven many of the points made in the Greenpeace pamphlet, noting that McDonald's did endanger the health of their workers and customers (including children), and aid in the infliction of unnecessary cruelty on animals. Although the decision awarded ₤60,000 to the company, it was a phyrric victory: the award didn't come close to paying McDonald's legal costs, and the defendants didn't have the funds to pay it. Steel and Morris immediately appealed the decision.

Worse, evidence that surfaced during the trial, regarding McDonald's business practices, was extremely damaging to the company. The defendants learned McDonald's had not only hired spies to infiltrate London Greenpeace, but they had hired agents to sleep with members and break into their offices. In addition, it was learned the company had abused its connections with law-enforcement to obtain information on the defendants. The pair sued Scotland Yard, and were awarded ₤10,000 and an apology.

The subsequent appeal supported allegations in the Greenpeace leaflet that McDonald's mistreated their workers, and that McDonald's food causes heart disease. As a result, the decision was reduced to ₤40,000. McDonald's had no intention of collecting the money, and had abandoned any plans to block distribution of the leaflet. Despite this, the pair appealed to the British House of Lords, and were refused. The case is currently on appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, both as a challenge to this verdict and to British libel laws.