Last week’s battle was nothing. Nineteen customers from thirteen states allege that the fast-food chain has significantly overstated the physical dimensions of just about every single item on its menu in advertising—both in-store and online. The full case name is Coleman et al v Burger King Corp. It now awaits ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The plaintiffs are claiming that Burger King’s advertising deceives their customers. They argue it gives consumers the misleading impression that the burgers, notably the flagship Whopper, are far larger than they actually are. The complaint maintains that the Whopper appears at least 35% larger in advertisements than in real life. It further serves to advertise that the burger contains over twice as much meat than customers would ever be served. This depiction purportedly misleads consumers as to the true size of the product.
In an attempt to distract from these accusations, Burger King released a statement claiming that “The plaintiffs’ claims are baseless. The reusal Those are the very same patties served in tens of millions of burgers to visitors across the U.S. That’s this defense’s purpose, to defense against allegations that their ads plead the 1st at least, but not worse than exaggeration or puffery.
We explained that U.S. District Judge Roy Altman of Florida is currently presiding over a case against Subway. He noted that at least a few curious consumers could be confused by Burger King’s ad tactics. If that ruling holds, it will have a profound impact on how fast-food chains can advertise their low-priced menu items. Look out for new strategies like these in upcoming Spotlights!
Anthony Russo, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said he was pleased that the court decided to move forward with the case.
“Some reasonable consumers could be deceived by Burger King’s ads.” – U.S. District Judge Roy Altman
The lawsuit illustrates increased focus on misleading advertising practices in the fast-food industry and the distinction between reasonable consumer assumptions and true product availability. As this case moves forward, it could establish rules for the deceptive ways food companies present their products to consumers.
Leave a Reply