Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Jack sued by Michael Shames!
Says Jumbo Jack pricing unsavory
Michael Shames (left)
Michael Shames, deposed head of Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN), says that San Diego–based fast food chain Jack in the Box is ripping off its customers.
Shames's lawsuit, filed June 18 in San Diego Superior Court, also names 12 Jack in the Box franchisees. The suit charges that the Jumbo Jack is available as part of a Combo meal, with fries and a drink, or can be ordered separately from the Value Menu. When a customer orders a Jumbo Jack alone from the Value Menu and adds cheese, he or she is overcharged between 10 cents and 25 cents a sandwich, according to the suit.
Jack in the Box could be doing this "intentionally or unintentionally," and not all franchisees engage in the practice, says Shames. The suit claims the practice is a violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law.
The practice "is so small that most customers don't realize they have been gouged," says Shames on his sandiegocan.org website. The suit asserts that consumers face "irreparable harm" from the alleged practice.
Shames's lawyer is his longtime colleague Hallen Rosner. When Shames headed UCAN, its staff would gather information on consumer ripoffs, and Rosner would sue for damages. Some UCAN staffers complained that the staff did the work and the lawyers reaped the benefits.
After a day and a half of telephone calls seeking comment from Jack in the Box, I heard nothing. If the company gets back, I will post its comment.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Jack sued by Michael Shames!
Says Jumbo Jack pricing unsavory
Jack sued by Michael Shames!
Says Jumbo Jack pricing unsavory
Michael Shames (left)
Michael Shames, deposed head of Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN), says that San Diego–based fast food chain Jack in the Box is ripping off its customers.
Shames's lawsuit, filed June 18 in San Diego Superior Court, also names 12 Jack in the Box franchisees. The suit charges that the Jumbo Jack is available as part of a Combo meal, with fries and a drink, or can be ordered separately from the Value Menu. When a customer orders a Jumbo Jack alone from the Value Menu and adds cheese, he or she is overcharged between 10 cents and 25 cents a sandwich, according to the suit.
Jack in the Box could be doing this "intentionally or unintentionally," and not all franchisees engage in the practice, says Shames. The suit claims the practice is a violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law.
The practice "is so small that most customers don't realize they have been gouged," says Shames on his sandiegocan.org website. The suit asserts that consumers face "irreparable harm" from the alleged practice.
Shames's lawyer is his longtime colleague Hallen Rosner. When Shames headed UCAN, its staff would gather information on consumer ripoffs, and Rosner would sue for damages. Some UCAN staffers complained that the staff did the work and the lawyers reaped the benefits.
After a day and a half of telephone calls seeking comment from Jack in the Box, I heard nothing. If the company gets back, I will post its comment.
Comments