Laws Broken: Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory

Laws Broken: Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 Comments

– [Man] This episode of LegalEagle was made possible by Skillshare. Learn to think like a lawyer
for free for two months by clicking on the link
in the description. ♪ Don’t care how I want it now ♪ – Yeah, that is manslaughter bordering on negligent homicide. A jury would convict
Willy Wonka like that. Hey Legal Eagles it’s time
to think like a lawyer. Today I am very excited to start a brand new series on this channel where I examine your
favorite fictional works to tell you all of the
laws that have been broken during the course of
that movie or TV show. Today we’re gonna start things off by examining one of my
favorite childhood movies Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Let’s see if I can ruin your childhood as much as law school ruined mine. Be sure to stick around until the end where I give you my verdict as to how much money Willy Wonka owes and how long he’s going to jail. A little background about myself, I have been a practicing
lawyer for over 10 years. I am admitted to the bar in five states including the District of Columbia. I have handled hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cases both on the plaintiff
and the defense side. And in my spare time, when I have any I teach law students how
to kick ass in law school. – I serve all his TV dinners right here. He’s never even been to the table. – So I am imminently qualified to examine a work of fiction to tell you all of the
laws that it has broken. So without further ado let’s dig in to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. – [Charlie] Hi Mr. Jopeck. – [Mr. Jopeck] Ah, come
along Charlie you’re late. – [Charlie] It’s pay day Mr. Jopeck. – [Mr. Jopeck] You’re
right, there you are. – Thanks. – Say hello to your Grandpa Joe. – Okay. – Okay big problem right off the bat. Charlie is way too young
to have a paper route. I think this is a child labor violation. Here this is governed by the Federal Labor Standards Act or FLSA which states that no
one under the age of 14 can hold a job in the United States. So later on in this movie,
Mike TV actually mentions that he’s 12 years old. And because I think all the children are supposed to be exactly the same age I think Charlie is clearly
under the age of 14. Therefore while Mr. Jopeck here may be thinking he is doing a good thing he’s actually committing
a child labor violation. ♪ Oompa Loompa do ba dee doo ♪ – What’s happening? – Willy Wonka’s opening his factory. He’s gonna let people in. – You sure? – It’s on the radio and he’s giving truckloads
of chocolate away. – [Teacher] Class dismissed! – [Boy] No, no it’s only for five people. – Class undismissed. – He’s hidden five golden tickets and the people who find
’em will win the big prize. – Where’s he hidden the tickets? – Inside five Wonka Bars. You gotta buy Wonka Bars to find ’em. – [Teacher] Class redismissed! – Okay big problem here. This is a clear violation
of sweepstakes law that exists in most states. You might notice that whenever
you see a giveaway on TV there’s always some fine print that says no purchase necessary. There is a very, very
good reason for that. The reason is, if you require purchase you’re no longer a free
giveaway in a sweepstakes you are an illegal lottery. That’s the difference
between gambling in a lottery and a sweepstakes which
is just a giveaway. That’s why you always hear
that no purchase is necessary and you can participate in the giveaway without actually making a purchase. Willy Wonka has not added that language and he explicitly requires
you to buy his chocolate bars in order to participate
in the golden ticket hunt. That is a clear violation
of sweepstakes law and my guess is that
he would be on the hook for the millions of dollars
that people have spent buying Wonka Bars in order to participate in this particular sweepstakes. ♪ If you’re not greedy you will go far ♪ – I want it now! What’s the matter with
those twerps down there? – For five days now the
entire flipping factory’s been on the job. They haven’t shelled a
peanut in there since Monday. They’ve been shelling
flaming chocolate bars from dawn to dusk. – Make ’em work nights! – Come along, come along you girls. Put a jerk in it or
you’ll be out on your ears every one of ya! And listen to this! The first girl that finds a golden ticket gets a one pound bonus in your pay packet! What do you think of that? – Alright that is another FLSA violation. He is clearly pushing his
staff far, far too hard. They’re working for five days straight form dawn until dusk. He’s making them work overtime without paying them anything extra. That is a clear violation. That’s called a wage and hour violation. I have friends who specialize in these kind of wage and hour violations under the FLSA. And they will tell you that the
damages in this kind of case really, really start to add up because not only do you
have to pay them back pay for all the extra work that they have done but you’re probably gonna
have to pay them overtime. And on top of it you’re
gonna pay statutory damages. So for the thousands of workers that this man has in his factory he’s gonna be on the hook for hundreds of thousands
if not millions of dollars in wage and hour violations. Not good. ♪ Oompa Loompa do ba dee dee ♪ – May I introduce myself? Oslo Slugworth, president of Slugworth
Chocolates, Incorporated. Now listen carefully because I’m going to make
you very rich indeed. Mr. Wonka is at this moment
working on a fantastic invention the Everlasting Gobstopper. If he succeeds he’ll ruin me. So all I want you to do is to get hold of just one Everlasting Gobstopper and bring it to me so that I
can find the secret formula. Your reward will be 10,000 of these. – Alright, so what Slugworth
is trying to do here is engage in corporate espionage, basically trying to steal a trade secret. If the gobstopper had
been publicly released then there would be nothing
that could stop Slugworth from just simply buying one and trying to reverse engineer
the Everlasting Gobstopper. However since the Everlasting Gobstopper has not been publicly released it still probably qualifies as a trade secret under Willy Wonka. So by asking Charlie to find
an Everlasting Gobstopper and bring it back to Slugworth he’s essentially asking Charlie
to engage in a conspiracy to commit a trade secrets violation. Now I know everyone’s going to say, “But Slugworth actually
works for Willy Wonka.” But here’s the thing, a conspiracy can have different mens rea for different members of the conspiracy. That’s how you have a police officer who engages in a conspiracy who’s not guilty of the conspiracies all the other co-conspirators. So you might get a weird situation where Charlie has violated
the trade secrets act by engaging in this conspiracy while Slugworth has not. ♪ Oompa Loompa do ba da dee ♪ – Now, will the children
kindly step up here? (man mumbling) – [Man] Floods, fire, frost or frippery. – [Mike TV] Accident,
what kinda accidents? – [Woman] I didn’t know
we had to sign anything for this to work. – [Violet] I can’t see
what it says in the bottom. – Violet, you first. Sign here. – Hold it. Let me through here, you kids. Violet baby, don’t you
sign anything there. What’s this all about? – Standard form of contract. – Don’t talk to me about
contracts Wonka I use ’em myself, they’re strictly for suckers. – Yes, but you wouldn’t
begrudge me a little protection. A drop. – I don’t sign anything without my lawyer. – [Mr. Salt] My Veruca
don’t sign anything either. – Then she don’t go in. I’m sorry, rules of the house. – Okay, so Willy Wonka is
trying to get the children to sign a liability waiver to limit how much exposure he has when things go terribly, terribly wrong. Now, I probably don’t
need to tell you that if you can’t physically read the contract that’s going to be problematic for the person that’s trying
to disclaim the liability. That’s called an unconscionable contract that there is some procedural
or structural problem with the contract itself that makes it unconscionable
for the courts to enforce. And if you can’t physically see the tiny print at the
bottom of this contract that is a textbook
unconscionable contract. But on top of that, Willy
Wonka’s gonna have some problems with signing a contract
with these children. Only the children here have signed them. They are minors. The parents, while they are present are not the ones signing this contract. When a child signs a
contract, generally speaking, that contract is voidable
at the option of the minor. On top of that this contract
seems to be complete gibberish. Generally speaking with
a limitation on liability you can disclaim things like negligence but you can almost never
disclaim recklessness. This contract doesn’t
appear to do any of that. Maybe that’s in the fine
print that no one can see. But it appears to be just a
string of legal sounding words that don’t actually have any real meaning. So I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Willy
Wonka has not disclaimed any of his liability and he’s going to have
problems with civil suits later on down the line for his
negligence and recklessness. ♪ What do you think will come of that ♪ – [Woman] What are they doing there? – [Willy Wonka] Must be
creaming and sugaring time. – [Violet] Well they can’t be real people. – [Willy Wonka] Well of
course they’re real people. – [Man] Stuff a nonsense. – [Willy Wonka] No, Oompa Loompas. – [Group] Oompa Loompas? – [Willy Wonka] From Loompaland. – Loompaland, there’s no such place. – Excuse me dear lady. – Mr. Wonka, I am a teacher of geography. – Oh, well then you now all about it and what a terrible country it is. Nothing but desolate
wastes and fierce beasts. And the poor little Oompa Loompas were so small and helpless they would get gobbled up right and left. A Wangdoodle would eat
10 of them for breakfast and think nothing of it. So I said, come and live
with me in peace and safety away from all the
Wangdoodles and Hornswagglers and Snozzwangers and
rotten Vermicious Knids. – Snozzwangers, Vermicious Knids? What kind of rubbish is that? – I’m sorry but all questions
must be submitted in writing. And so in the greatest of secrecy I transported the entire
population of Oompa Loompas to my factory here. – Okay, so what Willy
Wonka has admitted here is a huge immigration violation. He says that he secretly
transported the entire population of a separate country, of
Loompaland to his factory. A lot of problems here. Number one, I don’t see any reasonable way he could have transported
an entire country legally through immigration channels. On the other hand it sounds like the Oompa Loompas were really
facing quite a hardship in their native country. So conceivably they
could have been refugees seeking asylum in the
United States or the U.K. Which actually might have
allowed it to go through. But I don’t get the sense from Willy Wonka that he went through the proper channels for an asylum claim either. Additionally it sounds like he made a quid pro quo deal with the Oompa Loompas that he would transport
them from Loompaland, which is a ridiculous sentence to say, to his factory where
they would live and work. And it doesn’t seem like
he’s paying them anything. That seems like a clear violation of the 13th Amendment’s prohibition against slavery and indentured servitude. It really does sound like he has transported these Oompa Loompas away from a place where they were in fear of being eaten alive every day so that they could become
indentured slaves to his factory. ♪ I don’t like the look of it ♪ – This is a kids movie right? – Augustus sweetheart,
save some room for later. – Oh, oh Augustus please don’t do that. My chocolate must never
be touched by human hands. Don’t do that! Don’t do that you’re
contaminating my entire river. Please I beg you, Augustus. My chocolate! My chocolate, my beautiful chocolate. – [Mrs. Gloop] Don’t just
stand there, do something! – Help. – Okay, so Augustus fell
into the chocolate river because there was clearly no hand rail protecting people from falling in. OSHA or the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration requires that there be a handrail built to certain specifications to protect people like
Augustus from falling in. On top of that, Augustus
was touching a food product with his bare, dirty hands
which hadn’t even been washed and clearly contaminating
this entire chocolate river. – [Grandpa Joe] Don’t worry,
he can’t drink it all. – In fact, if we rewind the clip to see the entire chocolate river we can see a number of
health and safety violations. So if we take a look at this scene we can see numerous health
and safety violations that would shut this
factory down immediately. Number one, we can see the OSHA violation that there’s no guardrail
protecting the Oompa Loompas from falling inside. We can also see that
none of the Oompa Loompas are wearing hair nets. So all of that green hair is going to contaminate not just the river but all the other food products as well. At least the Oompa
Loompas are wearing gloves so they’ve got that going for them. On the other hand, Augustus Gloop was touching the chocolate
river with his bare hands and has contaminated everything. – Augustus sweetheart,
save some room for later. – On top of that, there is no segregation between the candies that contain nuts and the candies that don’t contain nuts. Which means that anyone could
have an allergic reaction because of cross-contamination. On top of that there appear
to be plants and trees growing on the factory floor itself in addition to probably
mold and other fungus. So there’s no way that this
factory could possibly be sterile enough to produce
a food safe product. So all of these violations
in and of themselves would require the factory
to shut down immediately because of violations of the FDA and other health and safety statutes. They’re not making any
chocolate any time soon. ♪ Why don’t you try
simply reading a book ♪ – Don’t touch a thing. (machine whistling) – And in addition to the prior health and safety violations
we just talked about this room appears to have literal garbage strewn about the entire factory floor. ♪ Oompa Loompa do ba dee dee ♪ – What’s so fab about it? – This little piece of gum
is a three course dinner. – Bull. – No roast beef but I haven’t
got it quite right yet. – [Violet] I don’t care. – Oh, I wouldn’t do that. I really wouldn’t. – So long as it’s gum and that’s for me. – Violet, now don’t
you do anything stupid. – What’s it taste like? – Madness, it’s tomato soup. It’s hot and creamy. I can actually feel it
running down my throat. – Stop, don’t.
– It’s delicious. – [Charlie] Why doesn’t
she listen to Mr. Wonka? – Because Charlie she’s a nitwit. – This sure is great soup. Hey, the second course is coming up. Roast beef and a baked potato, mm. – With sour cream?
(Mr. Beauregarde laughing) What’s for dessert, baby? – Dessert? Here it comes. Blueberry pie and cream. It’s the most marvelous blueberry
pie that I’ve ever tasted. – [Mr. Beauregarde] Holy Toledo what’s happening to your face? – Cool it dad, let me finish. – Yeah but your face is turning blue. – [Mr. Beauregarde] Violet,
you’re turning Violet, Violet. – What are you talking about? – I told you I hadn’t
got it quite right yet. – You can say that again. Look what it’s done to my kid. – Always goes wrong when we
come to the desserts, always. – Violet, what are you doing now? You’re blowing up. – I feel funny. – So here Violet Beauregarde
has been permanently disfigured by being basically
turned into a blueberry. – I got a blueberry for a daughter. – Potentially under a negligence
or recklessness theory Willy Wonka is on the hook
for whatever monetary damages are attributed to being
permanently disfigured in that way. And it might sound crazy but there’s actually a
very famous law school case called the Hairy Hand case where a doctor promised a normal hand but delivered a hairy hand. And the court had to determine
the difference in value between a normal hand versus an unseemingly hairy hand. So the courts are in a position to determine what the damages are associated with being
turned into a blueberry. On the other hand Willy Wonka might argue that Violet disregarded his warnings and literally plucked the
piece of gum out of his hand against his warnings not to eat it. And that might potentially work. But the thing about products liability is it’s often strict liability. Which means the courts don’t
actually look at fault per say they just look to causation, did a given product cause the harm associated with someone’s damages. So it’s possible that comparative fault won’t be an issue and Willy
Wonka will be on the hook. ♪ Do be dee da ♪ – [Charlie] Help! We’re by the fan! – [Grandpa Joe] Stay away from it Charlie, it’ll chop us to bits. We’re in trouble Charlie, I can’t stop. – [Charlie] It’s pulling me in! – Alright so it looks
like the Wonka factory is evacuating the air directly out into the outside environment. And the same with the chocolate river which looks like it was flowing just right out into the
environment into waterways then polluting into rivers and streams. I probably don’t need
to tell you that this is an Environmental
Protection Agency nightmare. Who knows what’s happening
to the environment because of the pollution that
this factory is producing? He’s likely to be fined severely for this kind of environmental pollution. ♪ I want the works ♪ ♪ I want the whole works ♪ ♪ Presents and prizes ♪ ♪ And sweets and surprises ♪ ♪ Of all shapes and sizes ♪ ♪ And now don’t care how ♪ ♪ I want it now ♪ ♪ Don’t care how ♪ ♪ I want it now ♪ – Yeah, that is manslaughter bordering on negligent homicide. A jury would convict
Willy Wonka like that. Here once again Willy Wonka has taken no precautions whatsoever to protect people from
falling to their deaths as a result of falling
into this equipment. There are no guard rails, there
are no warnings whatsoever. I don’t think it would be very
difficult for a jury at all to pin the blame on Willy Wonka and to find that he’s responsible not just for the civil
violation of wrongful death but also the criminal violations of negligent homicide or manslaughter because of his reckless conduct and the fact that he is
knowingly putting these people in this situation where
they can easily die. ♪ If you are wise you’ll listen to me ♪ – So the factory’s yours Charlie. You can move in immediately. – And me? – [Willy Wonka] Absolutely. – What happens to the rest–
– The whole family. I want you to bring them all. But Charlie don’t forget
what happened to the man who suddenly got everything
he always wanted. – [Charlie] What happened? – He lived happily ever after. – Yeah, such a heartwarming ending. The only problem is that
because Charlie has won this as a result of the contest he’s gotta pay taxes on his winnings. So while Charlie may be
very happy in the moment he doesn’t realize that
he’s gonna be saddled with a tax bill in the tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. So unfortunately he’s probably
gonna have to liquidate a large portion of the Wonka factory in order to settle up with the IRS. – The truth is when you
get everything you want you don’t really live happily ever after. Sorry. So let’s tally up Willy Wonka’s civil and criminal liability here. First, Willy Wonka engaged
in numerous OSHA violations which resulted in serious
foreseeable injury. The workplace hazards alone
resulted in the deaths of apparently four children. So let’s assume about $20 million
dollars per injured child. That comes to $80 million dollars. On top of that Willy Wonka
engaged in the illegal practice of indentured servitude. I’d peg those civil
violations somewhere around five million dollars
for the Oompa Loompas. And additionally, Willy Wonka engaged in an illegal sweepstakes lottery that probably cost
consumers somewhere between $100 and $200 million dollars
in purchased chocolate which we’ll have to disgorge. Which puts Willy Wonka’s civil liability somewhere in the neighborhood
of $235 million dollars. – So you get nothing! You lose! – On the criminal side
it seems like Willy Wonka is guilty of numerous
crimes against children including multiple counts
of reckless endangerment. – I feel funny. – Numerous counts of manslaughter and potentially negligent homicide. – [Girl] He’s blocking all the chocolate. – I think conservatively
each of those violations could bring with it jail
time of 20 to 30 years. So multiplying that by the four children that are permanently disfigured or dead as a result of Willy Wonka’s actions I would say, conservatively
Willy Wonka’s going to jail for between 80 and 120 years. – Good day, sir! I said, good day! ♪ Boom ba dee doo ♪ – With sweatshop owner and
murderer W. Wonka in prison Charlie’s gonna have to ramp up his skill set pretty quickly. Otherwise he’ll have to lay
off all the Oompa Loompas to pay of his tax bill. If Charlie wants to make
candy as great as Wonka’s he should probably check out
Skillshare’s culinary courses, like Lisa Long’s class
on making English toffee. And since Charlie is only 12 years old he’s going to have to learn how to run a business on his own. He should check out J. Hutch’s class on starting an online
business from scratch. Skillshare is an online learning community that has over 20,000 classes on everything like lifestyle, design and technology. The first 500 Legal Eagles will get two free months of Skillshare when you click on the link below. The free premium membership gives you unlimited
access to must know topics so you can improve your
skills and learn new things. It’s like getting a
golden ticket to success without all the child
murder and tax evasion. So click on the link, get
two free months of Skillshare and start learning today. And until next time,
I’ll see you in court.

100 thoughts on “Laws Broken: Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory

  • LegalEagle Post author

    Apparently, MatPat at Film Theory did a video covering the OSHA violations of Wonka's factory. Check it out! He goes into more depth about the unsafe working conditions. (I hadn't seen it before putting this video together, but it's well worth your time too).

  • Sha'a Gi Post author

    The world of Osha violations

  • Maggot Man Post author

    This is great! xD I can just imagine like you walking in after the credits role saying:
    Um, actually Mr. Bucket there are approximately 100's of millions of dollars in taxes that will be coming your way and you should expect to liquidate a…

    Several hours of painstaking bureaucracy later

    …and so Mr. Wonka I'm afraid you will most likely be spending the rest of your life in prison and Mr. Bucket will not be able to inherit this factory.

    The End

  • Nona Post author

    As a kid these movies always bothered me morally and emotionally.

  • AyeYo Nia Post author

    Film theory already did this. NEXT

  • Black Batman Post author

    Who knew willy wonka was trying to pass on the blame to Charlie because he knew he would lose ALL his money at this point

  • Rusty Hansen Post author

    LOL I love a lawyer at Wonka's chocolate factory I can't stop laughing at the intro it hurts

  • diane Kelson Post author

    Objection! My oldest son had a paper route for a weekly paper in the 1980s when he was 12.

  • Bucky Barns Post author

    Objection to your first comment. Children by the age of 10 had jobs in the 20s-30s when this movie takes place- it was a different time. Also child labor laws were highly overlooked until 1978 when Chinese child sweat shop scandals broke international headlines

  • Bucky Barns Post author

    Objection! A factory with plants can be sterile so long as the plants are maintained properly (ever heard of aquatics?). Also these are candy plants so how the hell do we know how they function or if they could be come contaminated at all?

  • Bucky Barns Post author

    Objection again! Violet took an experimental gum she was not given nor told to take. She took it anyway which is stealing. Also violets disfigured features being apart of the side effects of the gum would disregard as she signed a contact entailing in the end as we would find out that sterling company secrets automatically will disqualify you from wining or receiving anything

  • Bucky Barns Post author

    Objection on the highest degree on your final statement. In the 20s-30s taxes of that sort wouldn’t have been regularly applied, and even if they where mr. Walnka would pay for it

  • Kevin Lee Post author

    In the 1900's to pre-World War 2 it was very common for children to leave grade school and work in factories alongside their parents in order to help pay bills. I know of many people that have done this. They were extremely rarely subjected to anything more than manual dexterity labor.

  • Kevin Lee Post author

    It's stated at the end of the film, a question asked by Charlie and answered by Mr. Wonka that none of the children were harmed, none were dead and all would be restored to "their terrible selves" before leaving the factory grounds. Therefore, quasi-reckless endangerment aside, there are no counts of murder or manslaughter.

    Mr. Wonka had a way of appearing aloof and indifferent to a situation but obviously all of this was a test to determine the inheritor of his estate.

  • squireller Post author

    Your sponsor segways are too smooth….

  • I Cant Walk Post author

    Just watched This the other day only to find out Denise Nickerson who played a violet passed away yesterday so sad RIP

  • Little Bit Of Everything Post author

    R.I.P. Violet

  • Commissar Goblin Shark of the Cadian Shock Troops Post author

    side note
    if you read the second book, you find out the vermicious knids are Aliens, from space (i don't think there mentioned in the first book)
    so if you go by book cannon he hid the existence of Aliens from science
    after reading through the book we can add
    trespassing, on government property to his crime, he entered 'The Space Hotel USA' ,

  • Ed Paradis Post author

    objection: Child labour laws were differnet back then and its based in England so labour laws were different by England

  • Debra Blouin Post author

    It wasn’t manslaughter. Charlie asked about the kids. They were sent home fine.
    It’s ridiculous that a kid can’t get a paper route at 12 years old.
    Plus…this was all a test for Charlie.

    I get the fun of deconstructing the legal issues. Just a couple of things to ponder.

  • HerpaDerp Post author

    So when I go to my local park that has "entry at own risk" signs with jungle gyms and swings where kids could get hurt, would the municipality also be liable in this way?

  • Ray Rowley Post author

    Can you do one on often misunderstood terms? I'm thinking hearsay and circumstantial evidence.

  • Michael S Post author

    Wasn’t the factory in the UK? Lol

  • j b Post author

    Objection! This was in the UK so US law doesn't apply

  • That Guy Post author

    "Help, police, murder!"
    Ha, gets me everytime 🤣

  • Emma Letourneau Post author

    Objection- OSHA rules regulate employee and employer interaction. Since the kids were guests touring the facility, OSHA violation would not apply in their cases. OSHA rules would only apply to the Oompa Loompas.

    Reckless endangerment would totally apply in the kids case though.

  • D.DoT-Z Post author

    Willy Wonka commits child murder then hands over the factory to a scapegoat so he can escape blame

  • DayChan Taylor Post author

    Objection… are there criminal charges associated with slavery/indentured servitude

  • Chocobirdy Post author

    Whenever I watched Willy Wonka as a kid or now. I always thought the kids deserved what they got! None of them died afterall and we're just either plain rude and disrespectful, or a full on brat.

    Honestly if a jury saw the movie or I guess CTV footage they may conclude this as well.

  • doodily doo Post author

    "Let's see if I can ruin your childhood as much as law school ruined mine."

    ROFL. Love your videos, dude.

  • Nancy O'Malley Post author

    Objection! 1) this is England not the UK-different laws
    2) This takes place much earlier than 2019-So many posters here can tell you they had a paper route BEFORE the age of 14

  • Carter Baker Post author

    Objection: Strict liability would not apply to a unreleased product.

  • Dragonrabbit63 Post author

    OBJECTION! The film is based in England, not the USA, so the laws are different

  • rob w Post author

    I had a paper route when i was 10

  • maddiemoiselle Post author

    Objection: it's made pretty clear at the end of the movie that none of the kids died, so that takes out $80 million

    Also, you say that he's not allowed to sell chocolate as part of the sweepstakes, but I very clearly remember things like Lunchables and Danimals having sweepstakes like this where you would have to purchase one to have a chance of winning

  • Steven Ford Post author

    4:07 Objection: Mr. Salt actually offered a one pound pay packet to the person who finds the Ticket so in a way. It's technically not a violation of FLSA

  • Connie Hardwick_ Post author

    Willy: Don't forget what happened to the man who suddenly got everything he always wanted.

    Charlie: What happened?

    Willy: He lived happily ever after.

    Me: Wonka means himself because he got off the hook and won't have to pay any fines.(Y'all probably know that already.)

  • Quinntus79 Post author

    “It’s hot and creamy. I can feel it running down my throat.”
    Archer, “Phrasing!”

  • Shain Thomas Post author

    Objection: If you are going to talk about broken laws, you must reference the laws of the country in which the production is set. The only time American laws apply is when the production is set in these United States. Since Will Wonka & The Chocolate Factory is set in the United Kingdom, it is not American laws that apply. (Request: Could you please look at season two episodes of For the People?).

  • Dan Ketchum Post author

    Denise Nickerson, the girl who played Violet, recently died.

  • David Dashìng Post author

    You are too good !!!!!!
    funny as hell

  • Gavin Wheeldon Post author

    Objection: Paper rounds are ok for 12 year olds in the UK. I think the limit is an hour in the morning or something, totalling no more than 5 hours per week. There's not a set law, only guidance. That's about the normal age for a paper round, it's considered a child's job anyway, bit like mowing your neighbors lawn or something.

  • Nate DS Post author

    Objection:charlies actor was 16 when the film came out and while shooting he shouldve been 15. Sorry I have to be THAT guy.

  • Tori C Post author

    In the book they make it clear that the oopaloompas are paid in Chocolate. Not to mention they are shipped there in crates. This isn’t an objection. Would this be an amicus cure?

  • Nate DS Post author

    You heard him.
    we must deport the oompaloompas

  • encryptlake games. Post author

    My first job was at 12. Lmao and the 200 a week made me feel like I was rich at that age.

  • ldsman213 Post author

    Objection: Considering the magical or even divine results of all of the children's encounters couldn't we fairly argue that this is all an Act of God or Force Majeure?

  • Indrejue Post author

    Objection this happened in a time before child labor laws. second the sweepstakes law you are referring too is probably only relevant to a time after this movie is situated at.

  • Scott Archibald Post author

    paying taxes on winnings is not done in every county. in canada you pay no taxes on any winnings of any kind.

  • Keith Post author

    I disagree or very genral in your opinion on what's accepted on what level even osha and look at what year this was filmed idid newes papers at 12 and was born in 75 looks lugit to me

  • Julia Lu Post author

    Why does violet always talk in the same voice level?

  • Mathew Maciolek Post author

    Objection Argentina has a law that allows for any number of people to migrate to Argentina. Also under Argentin Law immigration status is a administrative issue not criminal issue. Therefore you cannot be in Argentina illegally.

  • Mathew Maciolek Post author

    Objection you should know that jail is for the accused and prison is for the convicted

  • ExGamArs Post author

    I think some of the biggest objections to this would be…
    (Btw not a lawyer but you don't have to be one to see the problems)

    Objection 1: Not in the US. From what I understand, no matter what country you are from or visiting from, you are subject to the laws of the country you are in, and the laws of your home country cannot over-rule the laws of the country where that citizen committed them – basically you could say amendment this and that, but that only works if you're in the country that has those laws and protections.

    Objection 2: Timeline. Many of the laws that were violated are not set in the time of the movie. It's like trying to add more charges to Hitler and say he died in 1970, and trying to lay charges on him based on laws that were put in to effect decades beyond his death. Only in a ridiculous fantasy could you do that. In real life? You would be sent to an asylum to get your head examined.

    Objection 3: Laws designed for Humans do not protect non-humans. It's like trying to use a law designed for victims to protect a rapist. They were clearly identified as not being human, so regardless of the time these beings exist, there is no law in any country in the world that protects them, and since you're trying to be as "by the book" as possible, according to the book, no lawyer would be able to use laws designed for a different species to protect another that no one on Earth was aware existed in the first place.

    Objection 4: Stealing a product design and claiming as your own or even using that stolen product design to make a counter, has happened in the US MANY times, Walt Disney is one of them, and yes he/they got away with it.

    Objection 5: Tax laws of the US used in a different country. Sorry, once again laws from another country does not apply in another country.

    Objection 6: Incorrect analysis of laws broken and cases against Willy Wonka suggests a re-upload with correct analysis of laws broken, cases against Willy Wonka, and must be restricted to the times for more accurate judgement.

  • Administrative command Post author


    All of this could have been avoided

    if the kids just listended.

  • jeova0sanctus0unus Post author

    this Movie is wierdly disturbing.

  • Eclipsed moonlight Post author

    When did the anti lottery laws come out?

  • Cooper Utley Post author

    OSHA: Regulated Screeching

  • Anna George Post author

    I had a paper route when I was 12

  • ThunderTurtle Post author

    The tax thing got me lmao

  • Hungry Hedgehog Post author

    Labor violation? Nonono I think you mean "Magic of the Industry". Working for 5 days straight? It's just Crunch 🙂 They need to do this to stay competetive. Nobody is putting a gun to their head.

  • Chris Bruce Post author

    Objection! LegalEagle when the 3 child labor law were passed there were age restrictions depending on the type of work as well as the age of the child, at age 16 they qualified for minimum wage jobs age 14 (which charlie is) could do minor jobs such as doing paper routes and age 18 for children who do dangerous work and to be honest the time period in which willy wonka was set it reminds me a bit when the child labor laws were passed (not making of the movie the time period which willy wonka was portraying) i could be wrong

  • Hungry Hedgehog Post author

    Objection: As long as it's stated on the package, that the product might contain traces of nuts or other allergens the cross contamination thing is not an issue.

  • Andy Sellin Post author

    This film was created in 1971 and many of the laws that you are describing are not created out were not in place during this time.

  • David Allen Post author

    So, like, in regards to the signed waiver at the beginning, the legality of which being void by merit of those signing being minors, wouldn't the fact that Mr. Wonka stated that they could not go in without signing it, and the parents or legal guardians of the children proceeded to allow their kids in after signing, constitute the agreement by the parents or legal guardians to that waiver, making it binding?
    Also, in regards to the print being too small to read, Mr. Winka clearly demonstrated later that it could be read under a magnifying glass. The kids (and parents or legal guardians) were aware that they didn't know what the small print said, but agreed to it anyway without asking for assistance in reading it.
    I therefore suggest that the waiver was valid and legally binding, except where its terms were prohibited by law.

  • Dr Kirb Kenneth kirby Post author

    OBJECTION! Cross contamination via nuts isn't necessarily illegal, just would require an allergen warning!

  • S.J.'s DIY Adventures Post author

    I had a job when I was 10. My dad use to pay me to help clean up construction debris when I was 5. I think that a 14 year old requirement is too old.

  • S.J.'s DIY Adventures Post author

    I don't remember any of the kids actually dieing.

  • Michael Johnson Post author

    What if Willy Wonka had build his factory with the premise that it is the embassy of the homeland of the Oompa Loompas ? Could he then dodge out of most all legal action potentially ?

  • Damian Vosloo Post author

    Could Wonka not leave the factory being his estate to Charlie, thereby foregoing the taxes ?

  • Zechariah Kouns Post author

    Objection: For the setting and timestamp of the movie, there was no OSHA, and therefore no OSHA violations.

  • Joseph Krakowski Post author

    Since Charlie is only 12 it's pretty unreasonable for him to know that he's breaking the law by stealing an everlasting gobstopper.

  • Camilo Iribarren Post author

    Objection: Review two legal series and give your ruling on legal realism: 1) Franklin & Bash 2) Bull

  • RedJive213 Post author

    Negligent manslaughter x 7

  • Thirst Fast Post author

    What is this, episode 1?

  • MLG NOSCOPER420 Post author

    This is the guy who i want to be my lawyer

  • ARC ALLCAPS Post author

    you forgot where he broke the laws of physics multiple times

  • Morpheus636 Post author

    objection! now I need to go prepare a "people v. wonka" mock trial!

  • Potatoman0316 Hi Post author

    Veruca slat/The girl who song I want it now. Could be facing destruction of private property. If you don’t Believe me Watch 16:27–16:37

  • private_johnny_rico Post author

    "Let's see if I can ruin your childhood as much as law school ruined mine."

  • Kimberly Turiana Post author

    How about law violations in Harry Potter series

  • Arb Sallaku Post author

    Hate to bring it to you but MatPat from game theory already did this

  • Daniel Elliot Post author

    objection. the plants ɡrowinɡ are ɡenetically enɡineered candies so… no funɡus. me thinks.

  • Dafydd Thomas Post author

    OBJECTION: Slugworth is doing illegal conspiracy and Industrial Espionage. That scene makes it obvious that he is a secret sneaky criminal.

    Will you whinge that Robin Hood involves the crime of stealing?

    Your whole shtick is this Character OPENLY commits a crime and never gets called out.

    Character tries to keep their crimes secret, you got nothing to say.

  • Sam Post author

    But you gotta admit those kids are stupid

  • Marcel whatever Post author

    Can you do orange is the new black?

  • Rob Robinson Post author

    Objection! Ruining my favorite childhood movie! lol

  • Dylan McGill Post author

    Objection the movie is based in the uk so any laws pertaining to the us does not count toward mr Wonka.

  • Jacob Weyman Post author

    A lot of these reasons could of been avoided if they had just followed the rules and not ignored willy wanka

  • Emi Kikuno Post author

    – Remember what happened to the man who got everything he ever wanted.

    – What?

    – I killed him and stole all his belongings.

  • SombraTheBombra Post author

    this film is based on a British book and created by a british author that set it in the UK so american laws don’t apply to this film

  • Midori Gurin Post author

    cough Film Theory cough

  • Joseph Mort Post author

    In the book, Wonka does solve the problem of payment by stating that he agreed to pay them with cocoa beans and chocolate. But that probably brings up some problems with wage laws.

  • Alex Song Post author

    In all fairness, a lot of this stuff didn't exist yet or just came into existence recently when this movie was made. OSHA, for example, was founded only a few months prior to the film's release. (OSHA was founded on 23 April 1971, the film was released 30 June of that same year.) Meaning, regardless of where and when the film is set, while filming, those regulations didn't really exist. The FDA on the other hand did exist, but again, in 1971 there would have been different standards to follow than there are now.

    Someone I think also mentioned this below, but all of the plants and fungi in the room are actually candy and or eatible, meaning that there isn't any of that contamination.

  • The Indiana Jones Show Post author

    I hated this movie! There was a lot of laws broken!

  • The Indiana Jones Show Post author

    No wonder there’s no laws broken in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, that’s what makes it better.

  • Gene Bethea Post author

    Objection: According to FLSA, Employment as motion picture, theater, radio, or television actors, working at home in the making of evergreen wreaths, and DELIVERING NEWSPAPERS are among the jobs exempted from FLSA child labor provisions.

  • John Pappan Post author

    Objection to the Sweepstakes reference. In this context, the kiddo said Wonka was giving away golden tickets – not Wonka himself. (He may have said it later in the movie, but we're not there yet.)

  • Carlos Rivera Post author

    I like how the world of PHD scholars all unite under the YouTube comment section

  • Derrick Zagorodney Post author

    Will Charlie be on the hook for these monetary damages as the owner of new Wonka Inc? Or would Willie Wonka keep all the liabilities, and Charlie keep the company intact? What if Wonka has no assets to go after?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *