McDonald - The Arthur Page Society

"And, of course, we stood the risk of being ordered to pay X amount of costs and
damages, and having an injunction against us, and the threat of going to jail. That was
very intimidating and daunting." She pauses briefly and looks me right in the eye.
"But, for me, it would have been much worse if I'd apologised for something that I didn't
believe deserved an apology. Living with that feeling would have been worse."
A film about the trial by documentary maker Franny Armstrong, titled McLibel: Two
Worlds Collide, has yet to be shown on British TV despite strong initial interest from
both the BBC and Channel 4. Broadcasters are worried that the film is libellous and do
not want a legal head-to-head with the US giant.
Yet if Steel and Morris win their case in Europe next month it's unlikely that McLibel
could ever happen again. And if they don't, well, that's the end of McLibel anyway.
"You can't go to a higher court, so that really would be the end of legal proceedings,"
says Steel, relief in her voice. "But, obviously, it's not the end of the campaign, not the
end of people challenging multinationals and the effect they have on society."
Dave nods vigorously. "No, no. That's a struggle that will go on for a very long time."
2. Bentley, S., & Vidal, J. (1997, June 26). Big Mac Under Attack. Marketing Week.
Accessed October 14, 2006, from
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/marketwk_26jun97.html
Big Mac Under Attack (Cover Story)
It may have won the McLibel trial but the case has exposed an arrogance which threatens
to shake McDonald's from its pole position. With rival chains eating into its market share
and a poor new product development record, can it get back on course? Stephanie
Bentley and McLibel book author John Vidal report. John Vidal is the author of McLibel,
Burger Culture on Trial (Macmillan, £15.99) and environment editor of The Guardian
McDonald's may have won the McLibel case, but what a lot it lost besides. The criticisms
of a small and insignificant group of anarchists - an irritating pinprick on McDonald's big
toe - became a weeping sore all over the body corporate as McDonald's found itself
having to fight a labyrinthine legal case estimated to have cost £10m.
Hindsight, as they say, is an exact science. Even in their worst nightmares McDonald's
management could never have imagined the incredible tenacity of the two defendants and
the resulting public relations disaster and sky-high costs of the McLibel trial.
Yet it is tempting to see the corporate paranoia evident in McDonald's original decision
to take Helen Steel and Dave Morris to court as symptomatic of an insularity and
arrogance that threatens to undermine McDonald's long-term future in key Western
markets, crucially the US.
51