Final answer:
The correct statement is that chains that protect consumers are also protecting themselves, as this is a good business practice that helps build brand loyalty and avoid legal issues. Claims that chains benefit from lawsuits, knowingly sell unsafe products, or gain from negative publicity are not true and do not reflect sound business principles.
Step-by-step explanation:
The true statement about the consumer protection practices of most quick-serve restaurant chains is B. Chains that protect consumers are protecting themselves. Protecting consumers against unsafe products is not just an ethical requirement but also a sound business practice. By ensuring the safety and satisfaction of their customers, chains build brand loyalty, avoid legal troubles, and maintain a positive reputation. This approach aligns well with the findings of Consumer Reports, which suggest that consumer preferences are significant and a critical competitive factor for fast food restaurants. Furthermore, maintaining high standards in consumer protection also ensures that employees take pride in their work, helping to refute the notion of a 'McJob' being less valuable.
In contrast, suggestions such as chains winning when consumers file lawsuits (A), chains willingly selling unsafe products for profit (C), or chains benefiting from publicity about defective products (D) are fundamentally flawed. These practices could lead to a damaged reputation, loss of customer trust, and ultimately could harm the restaurant's profits and disrupt the market balance whereby consumers get better or less expensive products and employees earn more income, leading to an overall benefit to the nation as suggested in the discussion of the impact of competition and market forces.