I think the lawsuit is frivilous...

Honestly, whenever someone else cooks for you, you have to rely on what they put in your food and its not always exact. You can try your best to make the best choices but still you are eating in a restaurant. I'd be more shocked about something such as frozen dinners because those are mass produced. Even mistakes happen there as I read recently Amy's was putting dairy in a product marked non-dairy and it was discovered after an allergy was triggered and they ended up pulling the product from the shelves.

As for Applebees, all I can say is yuck :) but that is personal opinion.

As a personal lawsuit, the standard of law is generally on damages. Inaccuracy (and even outright lies) are not generally actionable. The plaintiff will have to prove measurable damages, and I don't see that happening. Even if the calorie counts are off considerably, it would be nearly impossible to prove that an extra 50 or even 700 calories did any damage to the plaintiff (they'll probably try to argue some sort of pain and suffering, but they'd be unlikely to win, I would think).

The complaint being brought to the public's attention though is a good one. I'm surprised at how many people believe it when an advertiser says (or implies) "we couldn't say it, if it wasn't true." Why yes, they can, and they often do.

I'm glad to hear that calorie counts are fairly consistent. It does illustrate how common it is for people to expect calorie counts to be more precise than they scientifically can be. How many times I've done it myself or heard people obsessing over small calorie increments - does an apple have 60 or 70 calories.... Or feel like they "blew it" because they exceeded their calorie goals by 100 calories or fewer. Or the relationship between calories and weight (100 calories, at best equates to 1/35th of a lb, but often when a person exceeds their goal by 100 calories, they're often thinking that 100 calories translates into more body fat than 1/2 of an ounce). IT'S 100 CALORIES, that sounds like a lot!

And it can add up, but really how often would you need to eat at Applebee's for the affect to be measurable? Not to mention that the science of weight loss and healthy eating isn't so precise that calorie content alone (and not measuring your progress and adjusting accordingly) is a reasonable expectation.

That being said, if the variation should be expected to be fairly small. If any restaurant is advertising based on calorie or fat content, then they need to be able to control the calories or fat within a reasonable variance (and what that variance should be, I suppose will eventually be legislated). If they cannot or will not, perhaps they should face legal consequences - but I don't think that means that any "damages" should be granted to the consumer.

Just as failing a health code violation results in a restaurant being fined - the patrons don't get any of that money unless they can prove personal damages. In the case mentioned on the boards of a roach crawling across a countertop at a Subway - the Subway store will face consequences of the health code violation, but you can't get damages because you were "grossed out" by seeing a roach. You've got to prove that you not just "could have gotten sick," but that in actuality you did get sick and sick enough to have caused damages that can be quantified. It doesn't mean you shouldn't complain, but a lawsuit is taking it to a level upon which you're unlikely to win (often the situations are less clear cut, so I think it is better to err on the side of allowing frivolous lawsuits - than to prevent people from filing based on perceived damages). Still, it's pretty rare to get a completely boneheaded judge or jury that cannot see beyong what is reasonable and what is not.

I think that some people file a lawsuit frivolously because they're greedy or angry and want someone to PAY for the perceived injustice. I think others know they are unlikely or undeserving of a win - but want to get the "injustice" made public. How many times do you hear "it's not the money, it's the principle of the thing," and I think most people believe it. And I think sometimes a lawsuit does that - the person doesn't win, but attention is drawn to the issue and makes people think and even sometimes make new laws. Sometimes that's a good thing, and sometimes it just adds another useless or difficult to enforce law onto the books, but for better or worse it's our legal system.