Post: Post Reply: The legal department at Whole Foods et al, must be very busy - litigation costs are probably scaling upward in their annual budget. by LateForLunch

I have a relative who was a senior executive for Whole Foods for awhile circa 2000-2010. Even in this relatively short length of being in charge, he and the other board members had to make some serious calls on dealing with what seemed on first examination to be outrageous, kooky lawsuits.

Original Message: The legal department at Whole Foods et al, must be very busy - litigation costs are probably scaling upward in their annual budget.
I have a relative who was a senior executive for Whole Foods for awhile circa 2000-2010. Even in this relatively short length of being in charge, he and the other board members had to make some serious calls on dealing with what seemed on first examination to be outrageous, kooky lawsuits. See, some wealthy customer threatened all manner of legal attack if they did not stop "contaminating their foods with laser light" from scanners. The woman believed that she had strong evidence that at checkout, the brief passage of laser light with an extremely-low-wattage illuminator for produce and other foods in thin or clear wrappers was, "altering their nutritional composition". The company was advised by their legal consultants to treat the complaint seriously. They changed their procedures at every store as a result. It was costly, but cheaper than litigation and bad publicity. That was close to twenty years ago. Imagine how that must be today. It's probably less-costly (less risky) for them to keep a specialty-firm on retainer and shell out the $10-20 million cost annually (even when there are not many suits), than respond to each suit discretely with different counsel as they arise.

See, some wealthy customer threatened all manner of legal attack if they did not stop "contaminating their foods with laser light" from scanners. The woman believed that she had strong evidence that at checkout, the brief passage of laser light with an extremely-low-wattage illuminator for produce and other foods in thin or clear wrappers was, "altering their nutritional composition". The company was advised by their legal consultants to treat the complaint seriously. They changed their procedures at every store as a result. It was costly, but cheaper than litigation and bad publicity.

That was close to twenty years ago. Imagine how that must be today. It's probably less-costly (less risky) for them to keep a specialty-firm on retainer and shell out the $10-20 million cost annually (even when there are not many suits), than respond to each suit discretely with different counsel as they arise.