In re Kentucky Grilled Chicken Coupon Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation

Case # 09-cv-07670
Case Name In re Kentucky Grilled Chicken Coupon Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. IL

In 2009, Kentucky Fried Chicken introduced a grilled chicken product, in an attempt to re-brand itself as a healthier fast food option. To increase awareness, KFC launched a marketing campaign that offered a free meal to anyone who downloaded a coupon off of their website. KFC became overwhelmed by customers taking advantage of the coupon and began rejecting the coupons and offering customers a "rain check", which required customers to submit their coupons along with their name and address to KFC.

Plaintiffs believe that customers who were unable to redeem their coupons should be compensated for the value of the meal they were promised ($3.99). They also sought that KFC properly note in their advertising material that the grilled chicken contains beef.

Final Approval Date 11/30/2011
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. Objection of Jill Cannata was overturned.
  3. Jill Cannata (through Attorney Sam P. Cannata) appealed the Final Approval.
  4. Appeal of Jill Cannata was voluntarily dismissed.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 02/01/2012
Attachments Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Final Approval of Class.pdf
Final Approval of Settlement.pdf
Final Judgement.pdf
Docket Report.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Jill K. Cannata

Objectors Jill K. Cannata
Signers Sam P. Cannata
Attorneys Sam P. Cannata
  1. Consumer protection laws in different states are so different that a nationwide class is not possible.
  2. This variance also leads to inherent conflicts of interest between class members and class representatives.
  3. Lack of information to determine reasonableness of attorneys' fees.
  4. Class Attorneys and Defendants are the main beneficiary of the settlement.
  5. Cy pres recipients are questionable.

Class Counsel Jay Edelson provided a recap of a phone conversation he had with Attorney Sam P. Cannata. Edelson believes that Cannata filed the objection using a fictitious law office, so as to shield his actual practice from any fall-out from the objection. Mr. Cannata was unable to explain this discrepancy. (see Declaration, page 3.)

Attachments Objection of Jill Cannata.pdf
Declaration of Jay Edelson Regarding Objection of Jill Cannata.pdf
Supplemental Objection of Jill Cannata.pdf
Appeal of Objector Jill Cannata.pdf
Dismissal of Appeal of Jill Cannata.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated