Class Action Suit Greenlit Against Burger King’s Misleading Ad Tactics

Cheeseburger with fries on a wooden board.

Fast food giant Burger King must face a class action lawsuit over allegations of false advertising, as a federal judge ruled the company’s menu item advertisements may deliberately mislead consumers about the actual size of their signature Whopper burgers.

Quick Takes

A federal judge has allowed a lawsuit against Burger King to proceed, finding merit in claims that advertisements exaggerate burger sizes.
19 customers from 13 states allege Burger King’s advertised burgers appear 35% larger with double the meat compared to actual products.
The lawsuit includes side-by-side image comparisons showing significant discrepancies between advertised and served products.
Burger King denies the allegations, claiming the same beef patties are used in both advertisements and customer orders.
The court rejected Burger King’s dismissal attempt, ruling the ads potentially “go beyond mere exaggeration or puffery.”

Judge Finds Merit in False Advertising Claims

U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman has allowed a class action lawsuit against Burger King to move forward, rejecting the company’s dismissal request. The lawsuit, filed by 19 customers across 13 states in 2022, alleges Burger King deliberately misrepresents the size of its signature Whopper and other menu items in advertisements. According to court documents, the plaintiffs claim the advertised burgers appear approximately 35% larger and contain more than double the meat compared to what customers actually receive when placing an order.

Judge Altman determined that the allegations presented by the customers warranted further examination, stating that Burger King’s advertisements potentially “go beyond mere exaggeration or puffery.” This legal distinction is crucial, as “puffery” typically refers to promotional statements that no reasonable consumer would take literally. The judge’s ruling suggests that Burger King’s advertisements may cross the line from acceptable marketing tactics into genuinely deceptive practices that could mislead average consumers.

Evidence and Comparison of Advertised vs. Actual Products

The lawsuit provides substantial visual evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claims, including side-by-side image comparisons between the burgers as they appear in advertisements and what customers actually receive. These comparative images form a central part of the legal complaint, highlighting what plaintiffs describe as systematic misrepresentation. The filing specifically mentions multiple menu items beyond just the Whopper, including the Impossible Whopper and Bacon King, suggesting a company-wide practice rather than isolated instances.

According to the complaint, Burger King significantly increased the advertised size of its Whopper in marketing materials since September 2017, despite making no actual changes to the recipe or ingredient amounts. This timing element adds another dimension to the case, suggesting a deliberate shift in marketing strategy without corresponding product improvements. The plaintiffs expressed particular disappointment with the stark contrast between expectations set by advertisements and the reality of their purchases.

Burger King’s Defense and Industry Context

Burger King has firmly denied all allegations presented in the lawsuit. A company spokesperson stated unequivocally that “the plaintiffs’ claims are false,” maintaining that the same beef patties featured in advertisements are identical to those served to customers. The company also defended its marketing approach by explaining that it presents “styled sandwiches more beautifully” in advertisements to make the products look appetizing, a standard practice throughout the food industry.

This case exists within a broader context of fast-food advertising scrutiny. A similar lawsuit against competitors McDonald’s and Wendy’s was dismissed in September, suggesting inconsistent legal outcomes for such claims. Additionally, Subway faces its own legal challenges regarding alleged misrepresentation of meat quantities in its sandwiches. The Burger King case could potentially establish new precedents for what constitutes acceptable marketing practices in the competitive fast-food industry, where visual appeal plays a crucial role in consumer decision-making.

Potential Implications for Food Advertising

This lawsuit raises significant questions about the boundaries between creative marketing and consumer deception in food advertising. If successful, the case could force Burger King and potentially other fast-food chains to reconsider their advertising strategies, ensuring closer alignment between promotional imagery and actual products. The financial implications could be substantial, not only in potential damages but also in marketing strategy overhauls and possibly reduced consumer traffic if advertisements become less visually appealing.

For consumers, particularly those who value transparency in advertising, the case represents a potential shift toward more honest representations in fast-food marketing.