The Most Frivolous Lawsuits Ever Filed

Lawsuits are designed to resolve genuine disputes and ensure fairness. However, not every case that makes its way into court has merit. Some lawsuits are widely viewed as frivolous—cases filed with little or no legal basis, often driven by greed, spite, or the hope of extracting a quick settlement.

While these types of lawsuits are typically dismissed, they can still be costly and time-consuming for defendants. Here are some of the most infamous frivolous lawsuits ever filed:

McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case

The case that is often considered the most frivolous is the McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case. In 1994, Stella Liebeck sued McDonald’s after suffering third-degree burns from spilled coffee. The media initially portrayed this case as frivolous, but the reality was different.

McDonald’s served its coffee at dangerously high temperatures, and Liebeck’s injuries were severe, requiring skin grafts. McDonald’s had previously received hundreds of complaints about the temperature of their coffee, yet failed to act.

The jury awarded Liebeck significant damages, though they were later reduced on appeal. This case highlights how some lawsuits, while ridiculed, may have legal merit when all facts are considered.

The Pants Lawsuit: $54 Million Over a Lost Pair of Trousers

In 2005, a Washington D.C. judge named Roy Pearson filed a lawsuit against his local dry cleaners after they misplaced his trousers. Pearson’s demand? A staggering $54 million. He based his claim on a misleading sign in the dry cleaners’ window that promised “Satisfaction Guaranteed.” While most people would expect compensation equal to the cost of the lost trousers, Pearson sought millions in damages for mental anguish, inconvenience, and legal fees.

The case dragged on for years, attracting widespread attention for its absurdity. Ultimately, Pearson lost the case, and the dry cleaners were awarded legal fees, but not before the ordeal severely impacted their business.

Man Sues for Being “Too Handsome”

In 2012, a man in California filed a lawsuit claiming he was “too handsome” to hold down a job. He argued that his good looks made him a target of envy and harassment in the workplace, which led to his termination from multiple positions.

While the idea of being fired for attractiveness is unusual, it’s not the kind of harm for which the courts typically offer legal relief. Unsurprisingly, this case was quickly dismissed for its lack of substance.

A $5 Million Lawsuit Over “Crunchberries”

In 2009, a woman sued the makers of Cap’n Crunch cereal, alleging false advertising. The plaintiff claimed she had been misled into believing that “Crunchberries” were real fruit, and felt deceived upon discovering they were, in fact, artificially flavored cereal puffs.

Seeking $5 million in damages, she argued that the cereal’s packaging and marketing had misrepresented the product. The court dismissed the lawsuit, noting that no reasonable person would be misled into thinking “Crunchberries” were real fruit.

Man Sues Budweiser for Failing to Deliver on Its Advertising Promises

In 1991, Richard Overton filed a lawsuit against Budweiser, claiming that their advertisements had misled him into believing that drinking their beer would lead to encounters with attractive women and idyllic settings, as depicted in their commercials. When his beer consumption did not result in the promised experiences, he sued for emotional distress, mental injury, and financial loss.

The court quickly dismissed the case, ruling that Budweiser’s ads were obviously exaggerated and intended for entertainment.

The Case of the Peanut Butter Jar

In 2016, a man sued the manufacturers of Skippy peanut butter, claiming that the labeling of their product as “natural” was misleading. He argued that because the peanut butter contained added sugar and palm oil, it didn’t meet the definition of “natural” in his opinion. Though the lawsuit did not claim that the product was harmful or unsafe, the plaintiff sought compensation for what he believed was deceptive advertising.

The case was dismissed, as the court found that the labeling was not sufficiently misleading to warrant legal action.