160
Lidl recalls Paw Patrol snacks after website on packaging displayed porn (techcrunch.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Lidl recalls Paw Patrol snacks after website on packaging displayed porn::Superstore giant Lidl recalled Paw Patrol snacks after a website listed on the packaging displayed explicit content unsuitable for children.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 61 points 2 years ago (2 children)

All that food wasted for something that could be fixed within the confines of the internet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yep. These will all be recalled to stores who will immediately bin it. I love near a grocery store and seeing them do this shit is heartbreaking. Even more so when you realize they're dumping this perfectly edible food into locked dumpsters behind locked gates.

    You can literally see the pile of food they've thrown out when walking past the store.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    How many people are actually returning this product though? Nobody is going to any effort to return a product that costs so little.

    And everything I've read about this recall makes the reason clear so I can't see anyone opting not to just consume it - which more than likely they already did immediately on purchase.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    We have 3 packets left in the house. I’m not taking them back.

    It’s not like it’s a QR code that someone could scan by accident, and my son doesn’t exactly care what the small print says on his food’s packaging.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    The product they're throwing out isn't stuff that's been returned, it's every affected product they have in stock, which could be loads. Not even donated. Just tossed out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    I agree, however, the domain had apparently expired (according to the article), which makes it a great deal harder to fix reasonably fast. I still think issuing a statement that they'd lost control of the domain would suffice, but no, apparently wasting food is better for the bottom line.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent