Man Kicked Out of All-You-Can-Eat Buffet, Sues for $2M


This didn’t happen but what if it did?  Or does in the future?

From a business standpoint, we find this hoax interesting because until something like this really happens, generally speaking the public knows the term “all you can eat” implies an amount consumed within a specific meal; for dinner as an example or for lunch.  Is it only a matter of time before someone challenges what “all you can eat” means and exploits the system somehow.


Here are the (fake) facts from the story:
– Mr. Flemming was eating at the restaurant for 7 hours
– He ate 50 t0 70 pounds of food
– Claims he was still hungry when he was asked to leave
– Manager told him him his meal was free when he asked him to leave
– He left the restaurant and immediately called the police and filed a complaint
– He had been offered a significant amount of money by the company
– He is convinced that he can get more if he goes to court

What if this really happened?
What would you do if you were a manager and this scenario plays out at your restaurant?
Should “all you can eat” come with fine print specifying a finite amount of eating time?

Continue reading…

Springfield, MA
A man from Massachusetts is suing Golden Corral Corporation for 2 million dollars for false advertising after being literally thrown out of one of the chain’s restaurants by the employees last Thursday.

According to witnesses, the 51-year-old man who lives on welfare was expelled from the restaurant after he then spent more than 7 hours on-site, ingesting a quantity of food which has been estimated between 50 and 70 pounds.

Despite the fact that the restaurant advertised the buffet as “all-you-can-eat”, the manager of the establishment seems to have lost patience at some point, telling him that his meal would be free but asking him to leave.

The manager’s intervention angered Mr. Fleming, and a brief altercation took place before he was finally pushed out of the restaurant.

He immediately called the police and filed a complaint against the restaurant, and he intends to make the people responsible for his mistreatment, pay for their actions.

“It’s a serious injustice, and I am deeply insulted!” Mr. Flemmings told reporters.

The direction of the restaurant chain quickly issued a press release announcing that the decision to expel Mr. Flemmings was a regrettable personal initiative from an overzealous franchise manager.

They also said that some financial indemnities had been offered to compensate the damage suffered by the victim, but had been refused.

Mr. Flemmings confirmed that he had been offered a significant amount of money by the company, but he is convinced that he can get more if he goes to court.

The primary hearing, in this case, should take place on March 7, at the Springfield District Court.