Erroneous Judgment in McDonald’s France Lottery Case Highlights Legal Missteps

4 min read
Click on this link to visualize the original document: appel-court-of-paris_november_14_2003_case_2003_01523_legifrance.pdf

I directly challenge the judgment by the Court of Appeal of Paris regarding McDonald’s “Euro McPailles” promotion due to what I assert is a fundamental misunderstanding of the mathematical principles governing the game’s design. I am calling into question the court’s conclusion that both the paid and free entries provided equal conditions for obtaining prizes. This assertion, I guarantee, is most likely mistaken.

This significant oversight in mathematical analysis led to an erroneous legal conclusion about the fairness of McDonald’s promotional game. The public prosecutor committed a serious error by not consulting an actuary, who could have elucidated the disparities in the chances of winning between the paid and free entries. This failure has obviously misled the enforcement of consumer protection laws, impacting the interpretation of what constitutes an illegal lottery. I will later further detail the specific mathematical errors that led to this incorrect judgment, underscoring the necessity of rigorous, mathematically backed legal assessments in such cases.

I invite you to review the latest draft of the crime report, which is intended for law enforcement authorities worldwide. This document provides insight into the cunning tactics employed by McDonald’s Corporation and its accomplices. Additionally, it is noteworthy that according to the judgment, the co-manager of McDonald’s France appears to have a history of criminal convictions.

Summary of the (Erronenous) Judgment Provided Below

This judgment from the Paris Court of Appeal on November 14, 2003, addresses the appeal by McDonald’s France and the public prosecutor against a lower court ruling. The case centers on a promotional game called “Euro McPailles,” organized by McDonald’s France from March 7 to April 3, 2002. This game involved distributing straws containing potential prizes, including cash and vouchers. The promotion was initially suspected to be an illegal lottery because it appeared to require a financial sacrifice from participants, which is prohibited under French lottery law.

The lower court had found McDonald’s France, represented by co-manager X… Labbe, guilty of organizing a prohibited lottery and imposed a fine of 20,000 euros. The conviction was based on the game’s elements of chance, public offering, expectation of gain, and a financial sacrifice due to the need to purchase certain products to participate. However, McDonald’s France appealed, arguing that the game included a free entry option through written requests, making it not purely a financial transaction and thus not a prohibited lottery.

The Paris Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision. It found that while the game did indeed include elements of chance and gain, the presence of a free entry option that did not require a financial transaction meant that it did not meet all the criteria for a prohibited lottery under French law. The court emphasized that the accessibility of the free participation channel was genuine and that the conditions for obtaining prizes were equal for both paid and free entries. Moreover, it highlighted that the mere promotion of more expensive menu items in the context of the game did not transform the operation into a lottery, as long as a free entry option was available and functional.

The court thus ruled that McDonald’s promotional activity did not constitute a prohibited lottery and acquitted McDonald’s France, emphasizing the importance of the real and effective availability of a non-purchasing method of entry in ensuring compliance with French consumer protection laws regarding promotional games. This decision underscores the legal nuances in distinguishing between permissible promotional activities and illegal lotteries, particularly in the context of consumer marketing strategies.

Click on this link to visualize the original document: appel-court-of-paris_november_14_2003_case_2003_01523_legifrance.pdf

To gain a clearer understanding of the sequence of events in this case, I invite you to view a detailed timeline at the following link:
This timeline provides a comprehensive overview of the key milestones and developments.


Vincent B. Le Corre

I am the key witness and whistleblower in the major criminal RICO case targeting McDonald’s Corporation and their accomplices for fraud, money laundering, and corruption of foreign officials and magistrates. Initially granted anonymity by the European Court of Human Rights (Rules 33 and 47 of the Rules of Court), I made the decision in August 2023 to temporarily go public with my identity. This decision, driven by concerns for my own safety and that of my loved ones, was taken despite the potential risks, hoping it will be temporary only and that I can return to anonymity soon.