[SamBam]

Your definition of "bad article" is a single word difference: "And McDonald’s began changing how it [serves] up its coffee."

It's not false that McDonald's was negligent, and it's not false that the lawsuit forced a change. As far as I can tell nothing else is false. You can correct a statement in one bullet point of an article without calling it a "bad article."

[mcpackieh]

It's false that McDonald's coffee was unusually hot, and it's false that McDonald's has reduced the temperature they serve their coffee at since then. They haven't, and their coffee continues to burn people. They now win most of the lawsuits about this.

It's a bad article because the guy who wrote it didn't do any research. He just paraphrased a youtuber's video. Said youtuber also didn't do any research and just repeats stuff he's heard other people claim about the case, probably on reddit, perpetuating this easily debunked misinformation.