Today I attempt to destroy the character and chances of a certain presidential candidate.

This candidate is a TV star. He’s abrupt and a social climber. He was sued for scamming Americans in one of the biggest class-action lawsuits ever.

His name? Charlie the Tuna. You know, the cartoon tuna of TV commercial fame.

Sorry, Charlie.

Researching a remarkable class-action lawsuit against Charlie’s StarKist tuna brand, I discovered that — to The Watchdog’s astonishment — StarKist announced this month that Charlie is running for president. StarKist has created a public relations campaign around Charlie’s candidacy “as the #alTUNAtive candidate.”

Slogan: “I’m not sorry. I’m voting for Charlie.” (You’re supposed to retweet that.)

Bad PR move

If you are a public relations rep for a tuna company, and your company is about to pay a $12 million settlement to thousands of Americans because you lied about how much tuna fish you put in a 5-ounce can, would you run your icon for president?

StarKist is doing that. Maybe they hoped nobody would put the two together. Or maybe they figured that even though Charlie’s company deceived millions of tuna lovers for years with underfilled cans — false advertising and false labeling — he fits in perfectly with the other candidates.

Dig this: I’m running as the #alTUNAtive candidate for President! Show your support w/ a RT. https://t.co/BIQVdx3HqT pic.twitter.com/c1Zcdse9mJ— StarKist (@StarKistCharlie)

Where’s the tuna money?

I know this sounds crazy, but work with me. A year ago, I announced to all citizens of Watchdog Nation that we could make claims in a class-action lawsuit filed by a Californian, Patrick Hendricks, who complained, “I would not have purchased StarKist Chunk Light Tuna in Water had I known that the cans were underfilled and underweight.”

I explained that we could get up to $25 in cash or $50 worth of StarKist tuna by filling out a website form. I treated Hendricks vs. StarKist as somewhat of a joke. But many of you took it quite seriously.

You not only filed for tuna fish credits, you expected a check to arrive in the mail within weeks.

When neither money nor tuna arrived, many contacted me. Some accused me of being party to a scam because nothing happened.

Hey, a class-action lawsuit takes years, not months. It’s not like when you ordered a cereal box toy as a kid from Battle Creek, Mich.

Second, this one got all messed up by — guess who? — the lawyers.

Smells like bad tuna

Before I stumbled on Charlie’s crazy candidacy, I was finding this case riddled with big trends that point out deep flaws in our system. Corporate denial. Lawyers’ greed. Cutting off consumers’ legal rights. And unnecessary secrecy.

Hendricks vs. StarKist smells like bad tuna.

To be fair, StarKist denies all wrongdoing. The $12 million payout? Makes everything go away.

A settlement was approved by a judge, but last year he changed his mind. But a proposed settlement at least gives an indication about how this will end.

This case, court papers show, resulted in one of the largest collections of claims in any class-action lawsuit. More than 2 million tuna-lovers claimed we got cheated. Lawyers bragged in a legal paper that they beat a record previously set in a Red Bull lawsuit.

That many people means a smaller payout. We all must split the lottery jackpot.

The jackpot here is $12 million, with $8 million paid out in checks, $4 million going out in tuna vouchers and — uh oh — possibly $4 million going to lawyers. The ones eating into our free tuna.

One legal brief estimates the cash payout to be $2.11 per person, or $4.68 in tuna vouchers. But the payments, when they eventually come, will probably be much smaller.

A federal judge held up the settlement when he ruled that lawyers wanted to limit our rights in the case without properly notifying us. Another judge denied proposed legal fees for the battalion of lawyers. (Never saw so many lawyers on one case.)

I contacted almost a dozen of these legal beavers, along with StarKist’s spokeswoman. None returned my calls or emails. They’ve created a self-imposed blackout. It’s so obvious. They lay it out in the proposed settlement:

Everyone in the case “agrees that there will be no campaigning (including on the internet) regarding the settlement. There will be no press release regarding the settlement, and neither side will initiate contacts with the media nor issue any public statement, comment or promotional material that references the existence or terms of the settlement or litigation against StarKist.”

As if that’s not smelly enough, permission is given to lawyers to mention their role in this important case in “law firm websites, biographies, brochures and firm marketing materials.”

Deny the information to the public, but OK to puff up lawyers’ resumes and credits.

I don’t know when this case will end. Nobody is talking.

Lawyers are in hiding. StarKist is in denial. And Charlie is spouting tuna wisdom on the campaign trail: “I’m not a left or right winger. I got fins.”

But this helped me make a big decision.

Who am I for in the presidential election?

I’m going with Bumble Bee.

Please visit the source link below to read the entire article.