Question

What are 3-4 top priority issues that Papa Johns need to address? For the years of 2011-2013

Answer 1

1 . Papa John’s Sacks Delivery Drivers for ‘Butt-Dialed’ Racist Rant

I'm guessing your next order should be free

Two delivery drivers for Papa John’s pizza company have been fired for inadvertently leaving a customer a ‘butt-dialed’ voicemail message consisting of a vile racist rant.

Company CEO and Chairman John Schnatter has since issued a groveling apology for the incident, in which a customer in Sanford, Fla., was subjected to multiple ‘N-bombs’ and accusations that African Americans don’t tip. By contrast, the customer insists he actually tipped 21% “as usual.”

2 . On May 17, 2013, Papa John’s delivered the latest headline, agreeing to pay up to $16.335 million to settle a nationwide class action for allegedly advertising pizza promotions via text message. The terms of the settlement contain various redress provisions including:

$2,860,000 worth of free pizza vouchers to class members who submit valid claims;

$11,000.000.00 to pay cash awards to class members who submit valid claims;

$250,000.00 in court administration costs;

$2,450,000.00 in payment of attorney’s fees to class counsel; and

$25,000.00 to pay representative class members.

3 . Papa John’s TCPA Case Details

In November 2012, the Court certified a national class and a Washington State subclass of all persons who received at least one unsolicited text message that marketed a Papa John’s branded product through Papa John’s affiliate marketer, OnTime4u. In light of the size of the class, and the substance of the Judge’s ruling, a settlement appeared inevitable. A large number of interesting issues were addressed by the Court in its class action ruling, including the following:

First, the Court noted that plaintiff had Article III standing. Despite Papa John’s claims to the contrary, Papa Johns produced documents to indicate that it did play some role in the franchise-level decisions to hire the marketer that sent the subject text messages. The actual degree of such role would be left for factual determination at trial.

Second, the Court found that plaintiff had statutory standing to sue under the TCPA, despite the fact that she was not the primary account holder of her shared cellular plan and did not pay the bill. The Court found that, since she was the intended recipient of the text message, she had the right to sue Papa John’s under the TCPA. The Court also noted that because plaintiff was the authorized and sole user of the telephone number at issue, she had standing to sue on the basis of unsolicited text messages.

Third, the Court dismissed Papa John’s argument that individualized issues of whether recipients were charged for text message advertisements would overwhelm the class action “common question” requirement. The Court reasoned that the TCPA does not require plaintiffs to show that they were charged for text message advertisements to recover damages, so the factual issue was irrelevant.