A federal judge has denied Burger King’s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit, allowing claims that the fast-food chain misrepresents the size and toppings of its iconic Whopper hamburger to proceed. This significant ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman in Florida, indicates that the plaintiffs’ allegations plausibly suggest Burger King’s advertisements exceed typical advertising exaggeration.
Originally filed in March 2022, the lawsuit asserts that Burger King’s marketing images make its burgers appear about 35% larger than they actually are. Plaintiffs contend that the ads falsely imply an increase in burger size since 2017, even though the actual patty size has remained unchanged.
Burger King sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that its ad images were merely professionally styled and not intended to be exact representations of the food served. The company also requested sanctions against the plaintiffs, but Judge Altman denied both motions, paving the way for the case to move forward.
Judge Altman distinguished this case from a similar lawsuit against McDonald’s and Wendy’s that was dismissed in 2023. He cited more significant alleged exaggerations in Burger King’s ads and a plausible claim that consumers were misled about size changes over time, indicating the unique strength of the current allegations.
The class action now includes 19 plaintiffs from 13 states, including New York, Connecticut, Ohio, California, Michigan, and Massachusetts. These customers claim they were tricked by the company’s marketing images and purchased menu items that were smaller than advertised, leading to disappointment and financial detriment.
The core of the plaintiffs’ complaint centers on the visual discrepancies between advertised burgers and the actual products. The lawsuit alleges that Burger King exaggerates the size of its burgers by approximately 35% and falsely suggests they contain more than double the meat.
Specifically, the complaint states that the fast-food chain advertises its burgers as “larger burgers compared to competitors that contain oversized meat patties and ingredients that ‘overflow over the bun’.” This imagery, the plaintiffs argue, creates a deceptive impression that the burgers are substantially larger than what customers actually receive.
Read more about: Burger King Fans Are Raging: Why Are Our Whoppers Looking So Sad, and Who Needs to Get Fired Over These ‘Gross’ Scandals?
According to the lawsuit, Burger King began to materially overstate the size of its burgers in its advertisements starting in September 2017. Comparing marketing images from pre-2017 to current ones, the lawsuit highlights a perceived increase in burger size by approximately 35% and the amount of beef by more than 100% in the ads.
Crucially, the lawsuit emphasizes that “Although the size of the Whopper increased materially in Burger King’s advertisements, the recipe or the amount of beef or ingredients contained in Burger King’s Whopper has never changed.” This forms a central pillar of the plaintiffs’ argument regarding the alleged deception.
To illustrate their point, the lawsuit includes “a sad-looking photo of a real Whopper for comparison’s sake” alongside the idealized advertised image. These side-by-side visual comparisons are a key element in demonstrating the alleged incongruity.
The plaintiffs contend that almost every burger on Burger King’s menu is overstated in its advertisements, not just the Whopper. This broadens the scope of the alleged deceptive practices across a wide array of the chain’s offerings.
Read more about: Burger King Fans Are Raging: Why Are Our Whoppers Looking So Sad, and Who Needs to Get Fired Over These ‘Gross’ Scandals?
The lawsuit goes beyond mere visual discrepancies, alleging that Burger King’s advertisements for its burger and menu items are “unfair and financially damaging to consumers who receive food that is much lower in value than what was promised.” This touches upon the economic impact on consumers.
The current economic climate, marked by high inflation and rising food and meat prices, exacerbates the issue, according to the class action. The lawsuit states, “Burger King’s actions are especially concerning now that inflation, food and meat prices are very high and many consumers, especially lower income consumers, are struggling financially.”
Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue that Burger King’s promise of a large portion of food with their purchase causes “consumers to come to, or order from, Burger King and make purchases that they would not have otherwise made.” This suggests a direct link between the advertising and consumer purchasing decisions.
Read more about: Burger King Fans Are Raging: Why Are Our Whoppers Looking So Sad, and Who Needs to Get Fired Over These ‘Gross’ Scandals?
The plaintiffs also assert that Burger King is “unfairly competing with burger chains that more fairly advertise the size of their burger and menu items.” This introduces an element of competitive disadvantage for other fast-food companies that adhere more closely to actual product representation.
The lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased an “overstated menu item” from Burger King beginning September 1, 2017, based on what they claim was “false and misleading advertising” concerning the size and amount of ingredients.
The legal grounds for the suit include state consumer laws, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs are seeking class action certification, damages, fees, costs, an order to stop exaggerating the size of menu items, and a jury trial.
Burger King has maintained that the plaintiffs’ claims are “false.” In a statement, the company asserted, “The flame-grilled beef patties portrayed in our advertising are the same patties used in the millions of burgers we serve to Guests across the U.S.” They argue that their marketing adheres to traditional fast-food advertising practices.
Judge Altman’s ruling on May 5 stated that it’s “plausible to believe that some reasonable consumers could be deceived by BKC’s advertisements.” He explicitly found that the plaintiffs’ allegations “go beyond mere exaggeration or puffery,” marking a significant legal hurdle for Burger King.
While Judge Altman dismissed claims that Burger King misled customers with its television and online advertisements, as well as accusations related to consumer protection laws, he allowed claims of negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment to proceed. This nuanced decision highlights specific areas where the plaintiffs’ arguments were deemed robust enough for trial.
According to the judge’s ruling, “most reasonable consumers would be annoyed” by the significant visual differences presented in the side-by-side comparisons of advertised versus actual burgers. He indicated that the case could not be easily dismissed as mere hyperbolic marketing.
Beyond the Whopper, the lawsuit explicitly targets a wide array of Burger King menu items for alleged exaggeration. These include the Impossible Whopper, Big King, Bacon King, Whopper Melt, Breakfast Bacon King, Double Cheeseburger, Egg & Cheese Croissan’Wich, Single Quarter Pound King, Double Whopper, Triple Whopper With Cheese, Whopper Jr., Bacon Double Cheeseburger, Bacon Cheeseburger, Cheeseburger, Hamburger, Spicy Whopper Melt, Fully Loaded Croisann’Wich, and Double Sausage.
Each plaintiff claims to have purchased one or more of these items, expecting what was promised in the advertisements, only to be left disappointed by the actual product received. This broad scope demonstrates a systemic issue, according to the plaintiffs.
Burger King has declined further comment on the ongoing litigation, reiterating its stance that its advertising accurately portrays the products. The company maintains that the flame-grilled beef patties used in marketing are identical to those served in restaurants.
Despite Burger King’s assertions, Judge Altman’s ruling means the company must prepare for a potential jury trial. Although no hearing date has been scheduled, the plaintiffs’ request for a jury trial underscores the intention to put the matter before a panel of consumers.
This lawsuit reflects a growing trend of increased consumer resistance to advertising hyperbole within the fast-food industry. For years, advertisements have aimed to enhance product appeal, but this legal action suggests a closer scrutiny of how far companies can go in promoting their products.
Experts suggest that if the plaintiffs are successful, this lawsuit could establish a legal precedent, potentially opening the door for similar lawsuits against other fast-food chains. It raises fundamental questions about advertising standards and consumer expectations in a highly competitive market.
Previous instances of similar complaints against other fast-food entities include a 2023 lawsuit against Taco Bell regarding the filling in its Mexican Pizzas and crunch wraps, and a 2023 Chicago lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings concerning the nature of its “boneless wings.” While one similar suit against McDonald’s and Wendy’s was dismissed, the Burger King case has found unique traction.
Even internationally, advertising regulators have taken action. In 2010, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned an advert for one of Burger King’s chicken burgers because it was “not as plump and did not have as much filling as in the ad.” Donna Castle from the ASA emphasized that “Consumers should be able to trust the ads they see and hear. Ads should not be materially misleading, should not be ambiguous and should not exaggerate or leave out any important information.”
As this case unfolds, Burger King faces both significant legal and reputational challenges. For consumers, the central question remains: To what extent should fast food products mirror their advertised images? And where do we draw the line between permissible marketing and deceptive practices?
This legal dispute could redefine what constitutes acceptable advertising in the food industry. The Whopper controversy continues to sizzle in the courtroom, prompting a nationwide conversation about truth in advertising, consumer trust, and the tangible value of our fast-food purchases. The ultimate verdict, delivered by a jury of reasonable people, will undoubtedly set a new benchmark for how our favorite burgers are presented to the world.
The outcome of this legal battle will likely shape future marketing strategies across the fast-food landscape, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accuracy in enticing consumers. It’s a moment of reckoning for advertising practices, reminding companies that consumer expectations, fueled by visual promises, hold significant weight in the court of law.
Whether it’s the Whopper, the Impossible Whopper, or any other menu item, the court’s decision will send a clear message: what you see in the ad should bear a reasonable resemblance to what you get on your tray. The industry watches, consumers wait, and the legal beef over the Whopper’s size is far from over.
