Legal Wonk-ery: Delving into the Legal Confections of Willy’s Chocolate Experience in Glasgow

by Camille Chandler, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 92

I. Introduction

Growing up, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory portrayed every child’s dream: a mesmerizing factory filled to the brim with every treat their little heart desired. The recent Wonka movie starring Timothee Chalamet renewed this dream for a new generation as it brought back to life a magical world that revolved around candy. Only the lucky golden ticket holders are granted access to Wonka’s factory in the original film, leaving countless disappointed children in its wake. So, when parents in Glasgow, Scotland learned of an event that would give their children a taste of the magic, it was a no brainer to secure tickets. Little did they know that the event advertised to be something out of a fairytale would leave a very sour taste in their mouths.¹

This article explores the chocolate catastrophe known as Willy’s Chocolate Experience that took place in Glasgow, Scotland earlier this year and investigates available remedies for those affected by deceptive advertising. Part II examines the magical experience guests were promised, juxtaposed to the hellish incident they endured. Part III discusses the likelihood of recovery for those affected by Willy’s Chocolate Experience under Ohio’s Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices statute. Finally, Part IV concludes that there is still a lot of improvement to be made with respect to consumers’ pathways to recovery.

II. Background

Earlier this year an enticing advertisement caught the eyes of many parents in the United Kingdom.² The advertisement portrayed a whimsical candy land filled with giant lollipops, piles of jellybeans and rainbows made of licorice.³ House of Illuminati, a London based events company, advertised a Willy Wonka themed event claiming that attendees could “indulge in a chocolate fantasy like never before.”⁴ At approximately forty-five dollars a ticket,⁵ the event promised “extraordinary props, oversized lollipops, and a paradise of sweet treats” where children could be immersed in the world of Willy Wonka.⁶ Children would have opportunities to interact with characters from the movies and enjoy “chocolate in all its delightful forms.”⁷

However, what was supposed to transport kids to a world of pure imagination, resembled something closer to a scene out of Breaking Bad.⁸ Upon entering the obscure warehouse hosting the event it was quickly evident to parents that they had been sucked up into a scam.⁹ Families were met with a sparsely filled space akin to some kind of run-down carnival.¹⁰ A few pitiful looking backdrops clung to the walls as a chance to bring any source of happiness to this meltdown in the making.¹¹ Broken down picnic tables were scattered around next to a half-inflated bouncy castle.¹²

The day continued to turn chocolate dreams sour and resulted in a never-ending supply of disappointments. Secondhand costumes, shipped from Amazon that morning, were dispersed to the actors hired to play the once beloved characters from the movies.¹³ To make a sticky situation that much stickier, the event’s producers handed over a half-finished script that had been AI-generated.¹⁴ When the actors inquired about the props mentioned in the script they were instructed to “just improvise” because the producers “[hadn’t] really got there yet.”¹⁵ One actor later shared that he was asked to say: “There is a man who lives here. His name is not known, so we call him ‘The Unknown’. The Unknown is an evil chocolate maker who lives in the walls.”¹⁶ Clearly whatever AI tool the producers used had seen a very different version of the Willy Wonkamovie most watch as kids.

Kids turned blue when in place of the “paradise of sweet treats” they were promised, each was given exactly two jellybeans, paired with a half cup of lemonade.¹⁷ To top this chocolate calamity off, there was not an ounce of chocolate to be found at Willy’s Chocolate Experience.¹⁸ As anyone might guess, the experience literally left a bad taste in parents mouths and the day quickly dissolved into chaos, as crying children and angry parents descended on the organizers of the event.¹⁹ Furious parents demanded refunds and police were called to break up the mob of disappointed attendees.²⁰

House of Illuminati ultimately cancelled what was left of the event and have since put out a statement, attempting to give some kind of explanation for what many are calling a scam.²¹ The producers claimed to have been “let down in many areas of [their] event” and admitted that the right move would have been to cancel before anyone showed up.²² But rather than concede to accusations of fraud, House of Illuminati simply apologized for the “stressful and frustrating day” they had caused while also confirming that customers would receive full refunds for any tickets purchased.²³

Willy’s Chocolate Experience paints an illustrious picture of how easily overpromises to consumers can spiral out of control. With planning a ticket-selling event, comes the responsibility to deliver. If an event advertises extravagance and the ticket prices reflect such then the event’s producers owe that to their consumers. In the age of technology, it has become easier for sellers to promote unrealistic expectations with the use of social media and AI. To combat this dilemma, consumers deserve sound legal pathways to recover, such as state Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices statutes.

III. Discussion

In the world of advertisement regulation, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”) is frequently cited as the most prominent provision. Section 5 requires that claims made in advertisements must be truthful and evidence-based in addition to its prohibition of deceptive or unfair practices.²⁴ Under the FTC Act, the Federal Trade Commission has the power to target businesses that have defrauded consumers, but consumers do not have a private right of action under this specific legislation.²⁵ Rather, all fifty states and the District of Columbia have enacted Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices statutes which address the same concerns of the Federal Trade Commission Act, but in different ways.²⁶ As opposed to how Section 5 operates, some states’ UDAP laws create pathways for consumers to recover directly in addition to a state agency’s pursuit of justice.²⁷ While UDAP statutes do provide many effective options for consumers, there are still many ways these statutes can be improved to make justice for consumers more accessible. This section discusses the strengths and weaknesses of state UDAP statutes, using Ohio’s statute specifically to evaluate a consumer’s likelihood of recovery after being scammed by an event like Willy’s Chocolate Experience.

A. Ohio’s Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Statute

Due to the limited nature of the FTC Act, state UDAP statutes are consumers’ main line of defense after succumbing to deceptive business practices.²⁸ While the prohibitions between the FTC Act and UDAP statutes are similar, UDAP statutes actually put power behind the statute by designating enforcement authority to a state agency.²⁹ Consumers typically do not have the manpower a state Attorney General has access to, so many state UDAP statutes allow for Attorney Generals to seek civil penalties on behalf of harmed consumers against the businesses at fault.³⁰

Additionally, all but one state’s statute affords various remedies to consumers who have been harmed.³¹ With UDAP statutes predominantly being civil statutes, consumers have a greater likelihood of recovery than in a criminal case where the outcome is likely only punishment of the wrongdoer.³² This is exemplified in the Fyre Festival case, where although the event’s producer Billy McFarland was punished for his actions, very few festival-goers have been able to recover for the money they lost to attend the event.³³ Possible remedies consumers can pursue include recovery for the money they lost, punitive damages, enhanced damages, class action relief, as well as attorney’s fees.³⁴ However, a state’s UDAP statute is only as strong as its weakest link and the scope of a statute can put a damper on the remedies available to consumers; as one can see in the case of Ohio’s UDAP statute.³⁵

State UDAP statutes that apply a broad prohibition of unfair and deceptive acts are going to be stronger than those drafted more narrowly.³⁶ The substantive protections of these statutes matter because a broader statute allows for more flexibility when new types of conduct arise.³⁷ An example of this is AI technology. A narrowly drawn state statute would likely not allow for recovery since AI is an up-and-coming technology used in advertising. Ohio’s UDAP statute is a broad prohibition of deceptive and unfair acts and gives ample authority to state agencies to enforce the statute.³⁸ This allows for more deceptive and unfair practices to be targeted by the statute, but also puts weight behind the prohibitions by giving agencies the power to enforce it.³⁹

Along with a statute’s substantive prohibitions, a statute’s scope is of equal importance. Scope in this context is the application of the statute to different industries. A statute smaller in scope would prevent consumers from recovery if their case does not fall within an applicable industry. Some statutes will give immunity to certain industries or require certain context for consumers to recover.⁴⁰ The weakest element of Ohio’s UDAP statute is its scope, as there are significant gaps of coverage for various industries and situations.⁴¹ The statute specifically excludes lenders, financial institutions, and real estate transactions, as well as insurance and utility companies.⁴² This makes it much more difficult to hold wrongdoers accountable, but also prevents many consumers from seeking justice after experiencing a fraudulent transaction.⁴³

A major drawback of the FTC Act is that it does not contain a private right of action for consumers to bring claims under, which was a primary motivator of states to pass their own UDAP statutes.⁴⁴ Ohio in particular has not only included a private right of action for consumers, but also a wide range of remedies for them to recover.⁴⁵ Under the Ohio statute consumers can recover actual economic damages and non-economic damages up to $5,000.⁴⁶ They can also seek a declaratory judgment, injunction, or class action, in addition to attorney’s fees.⁴⁷ Unlike many states, Ohio does not require the consumer to show that the business who defrauded them impacts the public at large, nor does the statute require the consumer show that they relied on the business’s practice.⁴⁸

B. UDAP to the Chocolate Scam

After reviewing Ohio’s UDAP statute it is likely that consumers affected by Willy’s Chocolate Experience could recover some form of damages. There appear to be at least two provisions of the statute that the producers of Willy’s Chocolate Experience have violated. The first is the general prohibition of “unfair or deceptive consumer sale practices.”⁴⁹ The statute defines a deceptive act to include the “practice of a supplier in representing…that the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, [or] performance characteristics…that it does not have.”⁵⁰ The second applicable provision places a broader prohibition on unconscionable acts or practices and says that an act is unconscionable if a “supplier knowingly made a misleading statement of opinion on which the consumer was likely to rely to the consumer’s detriment.”⁵¹

Under the first provision a consumer affected by the Experience could argue that the producers engaged in a deceptive sales practice. House of Illuminati violated the statute when they advertised the event as a “chocolate fantasy” with a “paradise of sweet treats.”⁵² However, in reality there was no chocolate in sight and a limit of two jellybeans per child.⁵³ Attendees would have an even stronger argument under the second provision. The producers knew their event would not live up to the hype and that consumers had relied on the AI-generated advertisement in deciding whether to buy tickets.⁵⁴ House of Illuminati admitted that in hindsight they should have cancelled the event, and this proves they were aware that attendees would likely be disappointed.⁵⁵ As advertised, Willy’s Chocolate Experience looked like it was going to be a whimsical experience where children would feel like they were in the movie, but it was so far off from a magical candy land that it seems just to call it a deceptive act and the statute supports this notion.⁵⁶

Attendees who have a cause of action under the Ohio UDAP statute are entitled to recover actual economic damages.⁵⁷ Actual economic damages under this provision include direct, incidental, or consequential pecuniary losses that occur as a result of a statutory violation.⁵⁸ Attendees would have the highest chance of recovering the cost of the tickets but could also seek damages for travel expenses they paid out to attend the event. The statute also allows for non-economic damages up to $5,000.⁵⁹ It is possible that an attendee could seek some form of non-economic damages for having to endure the experience, but it is less likely that they could recover as opposed to actual economic damages. Non-economic damages could be something like pain and suffering, or emotional distress caused by the failed event.⁶⁰ However, this would likely be more difficult to prove.

The Ohio statute also allows for a consumer to recover reasonable attorney’s fees if “the supplier has knowingly committed an act or practice that violates this chapter.”⁶¹ If attendees are able to prove that the producers of the event put out the advertisement knowing that consumers would purchase tickets based on it and knew that they were unable to deliver on the advertised characteristics it is likely the attendees would be able to recover attorney’s fees.

IV. Conclusion

Although the occurrence of an event like Willy’s Chocolate Experience seems unlikely to occur in the United States, think again; the event is said to allegedly make its way to Los Angeles later this year, but it is unclear if the same producers are behind it.⁶² Even if this is not the case, Willy’s Chocolate Experience is not the first event of its kind and likely will not be the last. Many festival-goers of the infamous Fyre Festival have still yet to recover anything from the disastrous event that left thousands of disappointed attendees stranded in the Bahamas. Fyre Festival victims have sought justice at the federal level, but without a private cause of action in the FTC Act many have been left without options. Lucky for Ohioans, the state’s UDAP statute seems to broad array of deceptive acts in tandem with a plethora of available remedies. Now only if the statute were revised to cover more real-estate related transactions, Ohio would have one of the strongest UDAP statutes in the U.S.

Cover Photo by Amit Lahav on Unsplash

Camille Chandler

Before starting law school, Camille Chandler received a degree in Political Science and International Affairs with a minor in Psychology from Western Kentucky University. She is primarily interested in pursuing transactional work but is always open to expanding her knowledge in other areas of the law as well. She is currently serving as the Executive Blog Editor of the Law Review.

References

1
Mike Snider, ‘Fiasco’: Willy Wonka Experience In Scotland Creates Sour Taste For Ticket Buyers, USA Today (Feb. 29, 2024), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2024/02/28/willy-wonka-experience-glasgow-refunds/72778762007/.
2
Chris Stokel-Walker, The Willy Wonka Experience’s Generative AI Debacle Is Just the Start of Our Nightmarish New Advertising Reality, Fast Co. (Mar. 1, 2024), https://www.fastcompany.com/91044935/the-willy-wonka-experiences-generative-ai-debacle-is-just-the-start-of-our-nightmarish-new-advertising-reality.
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
Jonathon Bailey, Copyright, Trademark and Willy’s Chocolate Experience, Plagiarism Today (Mar. 4, 2024), https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2024/03/04/copyright-trademark-and-willys-chocolate-experience/.
6
Stokel-Walker, supra note 2.
7
Chris Murphy, Willy’s Chocolate Experience Nightmare: What Went Wrong?, Vanity Fair (Feb. 29, 2024), https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/willys-chocolate-experience-nightmare-what-went-wrong.
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
Id.; Snider, supra note 1.
14
Murphy, supra note 7.
15
Id.
16
Id.
17
Libby Brooks, Glasgow Willy Wonka Experience Called A ‘Farce’ As Tickets Refunded, The Guardian (Feb. 27, 2024), https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/27/glasgow-willy-wonka-experience-slammed-as-farce-as-tickets-refunded.
18
Calum Watson, et al., Willy Wonka Experience: How Did the Viral Sensation Go So Wrong?, BBC (Mar. 2, 2024), https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-68431728.
19
Murphy, supra note 7.
20
Id.
21
Brooks, supra note 17.
22
Murphy, supra note 7.
23
Id.
24
15 USC § 45.
25
M.A. Leaffer & M.H. Lipson, Consumer Actions Against Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices the Private Uses of Federal Trade Commission Jurisprudence, 48 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 521 (1980).
26
Id.
27
Id.
28
Carolyn L. Carter, 50-State Report on Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Statutes, Nat’l Consumer L. Ctr. Inc., at 3 (2009).
29
Id. at 6.
30
Id.
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
Id.
34
Id. at 18.
35
Id. at 28.
36
Id. at 11.
37
Id.
38
Id.
39
Id. at 12.
40
Id.
41
Id.
42
Id. at 28.
43
Id.
44
Id. at 11.
45
Id.
46
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.09(A) (LexisNexis 2024).
47
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.09(D) (LexisNexis 2024).
48
Carter, supra note 28, at 20.
49
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.02(A) (LexisNexis 2024).
50
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.02(B)(1) (LexisNexis 2024).
51
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.03(B)(6) (LexisNexis 2024).
52
Stokel-Walker, super note 2.
53
Id.
54
Brooks, supra note 17.
55
Id.
56
Id.
57
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.09(A) (LexisNexis 2024).
58
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.09(G) (LexisNexis 2024).
59
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.09(A) (LexisNexis 2024).
60
Id.
61
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.09(F) (LexisNexis 2024).
62
Freya Barnes, Notorious Willy Wonka Event That Ended In Disaster When Children Handed One Jelly Bean Each and Actors Not Paid Will Be Re-Enacted in LA…With One Familiar Face Returning to the Case, Daily Mail (Apr. 9, 2024), https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13289283/willy-wonka-event-recreated-la-cast.html.