Bradley Robb

Q: What’s the fastest way to make three million dollars?

Editorial Note – this is not the original article. I pulled that article after conversing with a friend. His arguments pertaining to the article made me realize that what I had written did not meet my personal journalistic standards. The article was built on what could be construed as hasty arguments and a rush to judgement.

On Friday, November 21st, a couple from Fayetteville, Arkansas filed suit against McDonald’s for allegedly facilitating the publishing of private, nude photos from a cell phone which had been accidentally left at a McDonald’s restaurant. Though details pertaining to the exact events are scarce, the story is generally believed to be as follows:

At an unknown date and time, Phillip Sherman was visiting a McDonald’s and lost his cell phone. After noticing that his phone was missing, Phillip contacted McDonald’s. The had been recovered and would be secured until he arrived. From there the chain of events grew a bit fuzzy. One source asserts that Tina Sherman began to receive harassing text messages about images, but most are not specific, simply leaping to the point where nude images of Tina Sherman having ended up online.

It isn’t known whether or not the Shermans approached McDonald’s about a cash settlement at this point, but according to the story carried by the Associated Press, they are seeking a trial by jury and an award of $3 million for “suffering, embarrassment and the cost of having to move to a new home.” Drawing from that statement, it appears as if the Shermans felt that they were in imminent danger from the information that had been leaked from a private phone.

The story draws parallels to the 1992 case involving 81 year old Stella Liebeck, the infamous “hot coffee” case. Though many of the details of this case have been overshadowed by the inherent hype, Stella suffered third degree burns to much of her lap due to spilled McDonald’s coffee. Her initial attempts to reach an out of court settlement were rebuffed by the fast food chain and the case was forced to trail resulting in a jury award for damages of nearly $3 million. All semantics and beliefs about the Liebeck case aside, the woman did suffer actual harm which resulted in a week long hospital stay and skin crafts. At this time, that statement is inherently questionable for the Shermans.

I am not asserting that the publishing of private information is not damaging, nor am I saying that it would be less damaging than a coffee burn. The attempt to quantify the actual damages of such an incident is not an easy thing, due in large to the viral nature of the Internet. The infamous-online phenomena known as a Streisand Effect illustrates the vicious nature of the Internet when attempts are made to suppress or remove information through public and legal means.

True to form, the phrase “Tina Sherman Nude” flew up the ranks of popular search terms on Google, yet the image seen here is the one most often returned. There was demand, but no such supply. In all likelihood, no such photos have appeared online.

A Photoshop job run at Wired

Though the absence of proof does not necessarily equate to the proof of absence, online it helps. Alot. If these pictures are online, they have not spread nearly as far as the Sherman’s lawsuit alleges. The online community as a whole is particularly adept at finding such materials. In the eyes of the World Wide Web, Tina Sherman nude is actually a black and white image of a lingerie clad woman Photoshopped onto an iPhone with a McDonald’s logo. The photo, as seen here, appears to have been created by the folks at the Wired.com blog, Gadget Lab.

While the lack of photos online certainly helps McDonald’s, it doesn’t completely make the case. No, that case seems likely to revolve around whether a private establishment is liable for contents found on it’s premises. Though I am not a lawyer, I have a strong feeling that the courts would side easily with McDonald’s on this as well.

And the question waiting to be begged is whether or not this a hoax? The lack of online evidence certainly seems to suggest that. As most avid Internet users could tell you, this type of content is sure to create demand, and would bubble to the surface. However, what has popped up is largely the same story recycled over and over again, and a few sites offering “video” of Tina Sherman as a vector for spyware.

What seems most likely here is a couple saw McDonald’s as an easy target based on assumed information regarding Liebeck’s coffee case, and attempted to capitalize on that with a more modern twist. However, this couple seems to have underestimated possibly the law, almost certainly McDonald’s, and definitely the power of crowdsourcing. But, as with these cases, everything stated is pure speculation until a jury renders it’s verdict, should it ever get that far. Either way, my personal interpretations of the law and responsibility actually has me rooting for McDonald’s at this point. And that’s not something I often find myself saying.

Tags: