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.

The lawsuit backfired when the judge confirmed some criticisms, turning a legal win into a global PR disaster and a landmark SLAPP case.

McDonald's sued two activists for distributing a critical pamphlet, demanding an apology and damages. The case was meant to silence criticism through legal intimidation.

The trial lasted 313 days — the longest in English history. The judge found some claims true: McDonald's exploited children in ads, paid low wages, was anti-union, and caused animal suffering.

McDonald's spent £10M on legal costs and was awarded just £40,000. It never collected and the activists never paid. The case brought the criticisms it wanted to suppress to a global audience.

The European human rights court ruled the UK violated free expression. McLibel became a SLAPP reform landmark, cited globally when libel suits backfire catastrophically.

Suing critics for libel puts every claim on the public record under oath. McLibel proved the biggest cost is not the legal bill but the credibility lost when a judge finds the criticism partly true.

McDonald's spent £10M on legal fees and was awarded £60K in damages (reduced to £40K on appeal), never collected. In 2005 the European human rights court ruled the UK violated fair trial and free expression rights, awarding £57,000. McLibel became a SLAPP reform landmark, cited in free speech debates worldwide. The UK's Defamation Act 2013 was partly inspired by McLibel. The original pamphlet was co-authored by a police spy, adding irony to a textbook case of backfiring litigation.