McLibel: McDonald's sued activists over a pamphlet — the 7-year trial became a PR disaster

In September 1990, McDonald's issued a writ for libel against Helen Steel and Dave Morris, two environmental activists who had distributed a pamphlet titled "What's wrong with McDonald's: everything they don't want you to know". The pamphlet accused McDonald's of exploiting children in advertising, paying low wages, harming the environment, causing animal cruelty, and producing unhealthy food. McDonald's demanded an apology and damages.

The trial began in 1994 and became the longest in English legal history — 313 days over three years. Steel and Morris, who could not afford lawyers, represented themselves against McDonald's legal team. The judge issued a 1,000-page judgment. He ruled that some pamphlet claims were defamatory, but also found that McDonald's had exploited children in advertising, paid low wages, caused unnecessary suffering to animals, and was anti-union. McDonald's was awarded £60,000 in damages, later reduced to £40,000 on appeal.

The case became a global symbol of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). McDonald's refused the damages and never collected a penny. In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK government had violated Steel and Morris's rights to a fair trial and free expression, awarding them £57,000. The McLibel case is now a textbook example of the Streisand effect: the attempt to silence critics amplified their criticism to a global audience.