Companies like Apple, Denny�s and Claim Jumpers have been dragged into legal battles by strange lawsuits that were filed by consumers and advocacy groups in the last couple of weeks. It�s clear from these somewhat frivolous lawsuits that any consumer has the right to sue any member of the U.S. retail industry for any old thing. It�s no longer so clear, however, where the boundaries between the legal system and the free enterprise system begin and end.

Is it right for retailers to have to live with the constant threat of being dragged into court at the whim of anyone with access to a lawyer?

The frivolous retail industry lawsuit of the week was filed against Apple for allegedly implanting illegal receivers into an iPod Shuffle and an iPod Mini purchased by a consumer on eBay. Purportedly, these illegal receivers allowed the mafia to send threatening messages to the iPods� owner, according to the court documents. The plaintiff in the lawsuit alleges that the mafia was stalking him because he had refused to work for them as a fashion model.

I was unaware that the mafia had its own Fashion Week tent, but in these recessionary times, I guess a thug�s gotta do what a thug�s gotta do to make a buck.

It is disturbing to know that there is a man in Florissant, MO who is hearing voices, but it is even more disturbing to know that there is a lawyer somewhere in the St. Louis area who is hungry enough to file these papers. Of course, there�s always the chance that organized crime has, in fact, infiltrated the Apple organization. Personally, I think it�s more likely that there are Microsoft moles, Palm plants, and half-blood princes in their ranks than underworld operatives. But that could just be because I have a very old iPod.

Another notably strange retail industry lawsuit was filed last week in California against a restaurant in the Claim Jumper chain. This suit was filed by a diner who alleges that he found � and chewed on � a used condom that was served to him in his French onion soup.

The restaurant insinuates that the claim is as fraudulent as the legendary Wendy�s fake chili finger incident. The DNA samples being collected from both the restaurant�s employees and the French onion condom will likely make or break the case. If the claim is authentic, I hope I never hear about how it happened. I�d like to be able to see soup on a menu without having to recall those details.

Tales about offensive foreign objects in restaurant food tend to be even more infectious than a hepatitis A outbreak. (Another lawsuit was filed against a McDonald�s in Milan, IL last week for just such an outbreak, by the way.) No matter how the Claim Jumper�s court case turns out, the damage to the restaurant�s reputation and the brand was already done with the filing. The case doesn�t do much for the sale of French onion soup in any other U.S. retail restaurants either. It�s probably time to get that 1980�s appetizer off the menu anyway.

Rounding out the week of random retail litigiousness is the lawsuit filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) against the Denny�s restaurant chain for recklessly as-salting its customers. It seems that Denny�s has been singled out for serving dishes that contain a large amount of sodium, which the CSPI says is dangerous to the public health and, therefore, should be labeled as such.

It�s not clear why Denny�s, of all U.S. franchise chains, was chosen as the target for this salty litigation. Admittedly the Denny�s Spicy Buffalo Chicken Melt sandwich has more than two days� worth of sodium in it. But one Pizza Hut Pepperoni P�Zone has about the same salt content. And after one bowl of PF Chang�s Hot and Sour Soup you�ll be sodium saturated for about four days.

It seems like one of the CSPI board members is avenging a bad late-night flapjack experience they had, because Denny�s is not the logical defendant for this case. The bigger mystery is why this organization is on the rampage in the first place. They say that the actions they are demanding from Denny�s are in the public interest, but the public is not all that interested. Otherwise, the interested public wouldn�t be eating at Denny�s, PF Chang�s and Pizza Hut without first consulting the nutrition information that is easily accessible online for all three chains.

Salt-conscious diners know that even a large glass of tomato juice can have almost a day�s worth of salt in it. They know what they can eat, they know how to order in restaurants, and when in doubt, they err to the side of plain chicken breasts and steamed broccoli. If all diners were really all that sodium-sensitive, the menu at Denny�s � and every restaurant in the U.S. - would change drastically in response to healthier dining demands.

An interesting trend has become apparent in the retail industry, though, illustrated by actions taken with cage-free eggs, trans fats, plastic bags, and styrofoam containers. Public interest groups, courts, and governments have been stepping in to force retailers and consumers to do what they won�t and don�t want to do for themselves. If we supposedly live in the land of free enterprise, though, that means restauranteurs should have the freedom to serve what diners are ordering, and consumers should be free to order the Early Grave special, if that is what they choose to consume.

Labels haven�t stopped smokers from smoking, drinkers from driving, or fountain-of-youth seekers from partially paralyzing their own faces with botulism. So, sodium counts on menus probably aren�t going to change many lives either as long as salt shakers are still allowed to sit on restaurant tables. (As far as I can find, there are no legal actions pending against life-threatening condiments yet, but I�m sure some anti-group somewhere is looking into it.)

Since nothing seems to be out of bounds for the U.S. legal system, the members of the U.S. retail industry will have to take whatever legal challenge is thrown their way, and decide when it�s time to retreat and when it�s time to defend the boundaries of free enterprise. Hopefully, in between filings and court appearances, there will still be some time left over for retailing.

The U.S. retail industry and the world was buzzing last week after Wal-Mart staged a high profile meeting with its suppliers and employees, where it revealed plans to create a universal sustainability rating system for products sold in Wal-Mart stores worldwide. A standardized index to rate products on environmental and social impact, and a labeling system that reveals those sustainability ratings to consumers will hold its supply chain accountable to high environmental standards. Green retailing will be more than just a concept.

The idea was called ambitious and admirable by some, audacious and arrogant by others. The word that comes to my mind is "curious."

One of the first steps in this major green initiative is for suppliers of Wal-mart products to answer a 15-question survey pertaining to energy, waste, natural resources, and ethical production. I'm curious how Wal-Mart corporation itself would answer its own question #2 which asks "Have you opted to report your greenhouse gas emissions to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)?"

Back in 2007 Wal-Mart announced that it was partnering with the CDP to measure the energy efficiency of its supply chain. "This is an important first step toward reaching our goal of removing non-renewable energy from the products Wal-Mart sells,� the company's chief merchandising officer was quoted as saying at that time.

What about removing the non-renewable energy from its own operations? Wal-Mart is still ranked #15 on the EPA's Green Power Purchasers list, well behind much smaller chains like Kohl's and Whole Foods. So while Wal-Mart itself has not reduced its own corporate greenhouse gas emissions nearly as much as it could have, the company is intent on making sure that its suppliers do that very thing. That seems like a curious double standard.

Wal-Mart has 4,100 buildings in the U.S. None of them have received LEED certification from the U.S. Green Building Council yet. Also, in the past two years, 22 global retailers have been recognized by the Association for Retail Environments for their green interior and exterior design. Wal-Mart is not on that list either. The energy consumption and natural resource practices of its suppliers are going to be scrutinized and held to high standards. Wal-Mart's standards for its own operations, however, seem curiously low.

I'm curious about who is going to take responsibility for verification of all this supplier-supplied data. I'm also curious how many suppliers will fudge the facts if there isn't a stringent global governance infrastructure in place.

By spearheading this retail sustainability effort, Wal-Mart has taken on a role that normally would be played by a government-controlled entity. Since Wal-Mart's $410 billion sales in 2008 were larger than the gross domestic product of 39 countries of the world, in a fiscal sense, the company qualifies as its own country. So, now Wal-Mart is a self-appointed governing entity for the world's supply chain. I'm curious if having a private enterprise in that position is disconcerting to anybody but me.

One of the statements made by Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke last week was also very curious... more...

Father�s Day wasn�t much help to the U.S. retail industry in June, as most major chains posted same store sales results that were farther into negative territory than anyone expected. While most retailers were quick to blame unseasonably cool and wet weather for their poor sales results, some others, like Saks, Buckle, and Tandy found a way to buck recessionary trends and deliver positive results. Apparently their customers own umbrellas.

Saks pulled itself out of double-digit same store sales losses for the first time in seven months, which was a noteworthy accomplishment achieved with a not so noteworthy retail tactic. Saks threw a sale, and shoppers showed up for it. How pedestrian!

Apparently Marc Jacobs cotton twill jackets and Pima cotton skirts from Red Valentino become recessionary must-haves when they are marked down 70%. But isn�t that something that TJ Maxx, Ross and Stein Mart figured out a couple of decades ago?

The designer sale which was staged in June is an annual event at Saks. Despite its particular appeal to shoppers this year, however, discounting is not going to be adopted as an ongoing strategy, no matter how desperate for transactions the Fifth Avenue retailer might seem to be. The luxury retailer, instead, has decided to meet scarcity with scarcity.

This fall Saks shoppers will find fewer designers, smaller collections, and a limited assortment of sizes and colors of just about everything. It seems this will be true for most luxury retail operations. By offering less, luxury retailers are creating a paradigm of that�s-all-there-is-there-ain�t-no-more, which they are hoping will retrain their customers to shop early and shop often.

Luxury is moving back to... more...

Cage-free eggs have become a hot trend for American restaurant chains, as activist groups are successfully dragging major food retailers into the middle of the ethical food production debate. While both consumers and U.S. retail industry restauranteurs have declared their public support for the cage-free movement, both groups have yet to convincingly demonstrate real loyalty for the cause with deeply committed actions.

Red Robin is the latest U.S. casual dining chain to announce that it will be using cage-free eggs in its restaurants. The company made a public commitment to go cage-free with at least one-third of its eggs beginning this month. By the end of 2010 the company vows that none of its eggs will originate from foul fowl sources.

This is a move that is aligned with the social responsibility that Red Robin demonstrates regularly, and for all of its principle-motivated decisions the company deserves applause. The value of this particular decision to the farm animal welfare movement, however, is really more about hype than substantive impact.

If you scan the Red Robin gourmet burger menu, it's a where's-Waldo kind of exercise to find any of its offerings that use eggs. Beyond the fried egg which tops its signature Royal Red Robin Burger, and the hard-boiled egg on its Cobb salad, eggs do not seem to be a key ingredient in any of the 59 other menu choices. So, to put Red Robin's cage-free commitment into perspective, 30% of the eggs that are used in 3% of its menu selections are now produced by chickens that have at lest enough room to flap their wings.

Mother-may-I take half of a baby step towards the reformation of the horrifically offensive operating practices of farm factories in America? Yes, you may.

Red Robin's egg use is negligible compared to the restaurant industry as a whole, so its shift to cage-free consumption is not going to make a dramatic impact on the lives of many chickens. This is not a criticism of Red Robin, but more an illustration of the realities of the morally desirable, but logistically challenged cage-free movement.

Currently only 5% of the eggs available in the U.S. today are produced in cage-free operations. Why? Because it's more expensive and there aren't enough customers willing to pay the higher price. It's strictly economics. If every restaurant in America simultaneously decided to stop purchasing eggs that were obtained from sources that were deemed to be "cruel,"�there simply would not be enough "humane" eggs to supply the demand.

Regardless of this supply and demand reality, organizations like the U.S. Humane Society (HSUS) and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are on the warpath with the cage-free issue, launching high profile campaigns targeted at some of the most popular publicly traded U.S. restaurant chains. McDonald's was a recent target. At the company's annual meeting in May, shareholders were asked to vote on a resolution which would compel the fast food chain to begin the transition to purchasing and serving only cage-free eggs. The resolution was initiated by HSUS and PETA, which reportedly own 101 and 79 shares of McDonald's stock, respectively.

Let's pause to enjoy the irony of this scenario. McDonald's sales and stock prices have been flourishing in this recession economy. So, with their stock ownership, both the Humane Society and PETA are both financially supporting and profiting from the very corporate practices that they label as unconscionable. Is anyone besides me amused by that?

In a statement made prior to that shareholder vote, Paul Shapiro, senior director of the HSUS factory farming campaign said, "It's time for the company [McDonald's] to realize that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to this type of animal abuse and begin switching to cage-free eggs." Reality check, please. It's time for the animal rights advocates to realize that what Americans say and what Americans do are very often two different things.

While Americans may say in a survey that they are morally opposed to battery-cage conditions, if their behaviors matched their beliefs, they would simply stop visiting the McDonald's drive-thru at breakfast time. But they haven't stopped, by the millions. So, in reality, Americans want to have their cage-free chickens and eat their buy-one-get-one-free Egg McMuffins too.

So, everybody is verbally supporting the cage-free outcome, but nobody is proving that they are willing to sacrifice anything to obtain it. McDonald's same store sales continue to grow, so we can conclude that fast food diners are not as morally outraged as they are hungry and broke. And after 95% of the McDonald's shareholders voted against the HSUS/PETA cage-free resolution, we can also conclude that the golden profits of the golden arches are more important than the golden rule for a vast majority of the company's investors.

While I personally support the ideals of HSUS and PETA in this issue, I'm not sure it's really fair to force corporations to grow a conscience when consumers clearly aren't purchasing with theirs. When I looked in the egg cooler at my local Publix grocery store this afternoon, the supply of cheap antibiotic-laced eggs produced by hormone-fed, genetically-altered, physically-abused chickens had been depleted quite a bit. The stock of higher-priced eggs produced by happy, free-moving chickens seemed untouched in comparison.

Millions of people will be adding the 99-cent cartons of eggs to their grocery carts this week without regard to the well-being of the twelve hens that pushed out the product. So aren't the egg end-users the group of people that really should be in the HSUS and PETA crosshairs?

Targeting the fast food companies that make egg sandwiches probably isn't going to work as long as their cash registers are still getting filled by those who are eating the fast food egg sandiwches. Which comes first - the supply of cage-free chickens or the real demand for cage-free eggs backed by steadfast consuming behaviors? That's not really an unsolvable conundrum, is it?

To be fair, there are many companies in the U.S. retail industry that make decisions with a moral compass, leading change instead of reacting to consumer whims. Whole Foods stopped selling eggs from battery-caged hens in 2005. Ben and Jerry's committed to using only cage-free eggs in 2006. Both of these companies have been recognized and admired for their principle-centered practices for as long as they have been in business.

Burger King, Wendy's, Hardees and Carl's Jr. have also publicly committed to using cage-free eggs, but at last reports, 98 out of 100 eggs served at these restaurants are still produced by battery-caged birds. I guess 2% multiplied by several chains will add up eventually, but the big accolades that these companies are getting for such small commitments don't make their cage-free actions seem very authentically motivated.

Should we really be all that impressed by companies that are taking the cage-free high road because it's good for their image and doesn't cost them much? Or is eggwashing starting to be the new greenwashing?

If HSUS and PETA supporters walked into one of the restaurants with a 2% cage-free commitment, it's doubtful that they would be able to specifically request and receive a cage-free egg sandwich there. Let's face it, though. The HSUS and PETA supporters I know are not exactly the target market for these kinds of retail food chains anyway.

That, of course, is the fundamental challenge. Those who care don't consume the products and those who consume the products don't really care. Until one side or the other changes the way they participate in that paradigm, profit-motivated restaurant chains aren't likely to make any profound changes either.

While there are no real winners in the cage-free battle so far, it is clear that the big losers continue to be the chickens.

Or is it the eggs?