I believe that George and Mary do have a valid case to file against the Don's fast food restaurant. There is a reason that Don’s restaurant is providing burgers and food for the high schools locality which has been contracted with the school authorities. From the results of the health department’s survey showing that the food from Don’s is causing the children to develop high cholesterol and obesity, with George and Mary’s son being one of those children. There are many legal arguments which can help in the favor of the plaintiff’s case.
First is the Consumer Act, their first right is to apply and know the consumer rights, because misleading trade practices is prohibited by the Act which is against the unfair or a fraudulent business performance. (Goldring, 1998).
Second is the Consumer Product Safety Act giving the power to the CPSC to develop safety standards and protection from the products which represent unreasonable dangers to the consumer’s health. It also allows for the CPSC to put a ban on the product if they see no possible substitutions. George and Mary could also use this Act to assist in their case based on how the CPSA feeds from the CPSC's jurisdiction on those products which specifically lie in another jurisdiction, in this case the food department may fall under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In the Consumer Product and Safety of the Improvement Act among the other provisions, (15 U.S.C. 2051) it guards the moles, those who take actions to lift the concerns about the consumer’s product safety. With that being said the plaintiff can file and ask for a written complaint along with seeking a statutory remedy, due to have suffering an unlawful vengeance (Goldring, 1998).
As mentioned, Don’s restaurant food management purposely failed to give any consumer facts of the ingredients used in the food products served. Consumers have the right to know what ingredients are being used for health concerns especially when it comes to their children. CPSC requires the manufacturers for the children's supply be tested with a certified laboratory. In the act it also states that in goods stores such as the Charity shop, including the books made can sell the children’s goods without violating the standards, and that any business must first test and achieve a certificate and then offer products and services. The plaintiff can ask for certified standard records and for assurance of safety of their food products (Pridgen, & Alderman, 1986).
Next is the FDA agency which plays a vital role in this case against the Don’s restaurant. The FDA has established regulations which aid in the manufacturing and use of any products with nonstick coatings. Materials which have Teflon cannot be considered as FDA Approved; instead they are categorized as, "FDA Compliant" and "FDA Acceptable." The court proceedings can look after the case by investigation based on the FDA (Pridgen, & Alderman, 1986).
Lastly is the Federal Trade Commission which handles supply and other trades of the business to include the ‘Bureau of a Consumer Protection’. In the Bureau of the Consumer Protection, it is ordered to protect the consumers against the unfair or deceptive acts and also in the practices in the commerce. If there is a claim with a written permission of the head Commission, the Bureau must attorneys implement the federal laws which are related to the consumer affairs, rules and transmitted by FTC. In this case George and Mary may benefit from this act because of the features including enforcement actions, investigations, and consumer education. It also handles concerns with fraud, privacy protection and identity protection, authentic supply related, etc. In this Federal Trade Commission Act, the higher Commission has the authority to take actions in the federal court throughout its attorneys, and with it being a consumer protection issue, the FTC will take it an appear and supports the Department of the Justice (Macaulay, 1979).
FTC has the power to inspect and deter and deceptive act of the trade practices which is stated in Section 5 of the FTC Act. It also declares an “unfair method for the sake of competition that affects commerce, and also being involved in the deceptive acts which affect commerce, are declared unlawful.” The Don’s restaurant is rather famous and has great market value. This means that there must be competitors in the market for Don’s restaurant to participate in various acts. The truth will be known once the investigations have been made. Injustice and deception for the consumers symbolizes two separate areas of the FTC authority and enforcement. The FTC has the authority to overtake all the unfair techniques of the competition between the businesses (Macaulay, 1979).
The Federal Trade Commission also focuses on theft identity. In this, the FTC helps with the federal store for an individual consumer who complains against the issue related to identity theft. Although the FTC completely does not resolve any individual complaints, it uses accumulated information related, to decide where the federal action must be taken. The plaintiff can raise the complaint by filing the form which is available via online or phone. If the court finds any unfair practices happening during the investigation the restaurant will definitely be under investigation. As per the arguments and claims we discussed it is obvious that the plaintiff wins the case only based on the investigation the judgment has to be concluded as courts usually consider one of the main factors under the consumer acts that the practice should not harm or injure the consumer in any way (Law, 1976).

References Goldring, J., Maher, L., McKeough, J., & Pearson, G. (1998). Consumer protection law. Federation Press. Law, C. P. (1976). Consumer protection law. Macaulay, S. (1979). Lawyers and consumer protection laws. Law & Soc'y Rev., 14, 115. Pridgen, D., & Alderman, R. M. (1986). Consumer Protection and the Law (pp. 12-20). C. Boardman.