The Biggest Burger Chain Lawsuits Of All Time

Yahoo

26-04-2025

Grabbing a burger is supposed to be a satisfying experience. Unfortunately, patrons sometimes bite more than they bargained for, which leads them down the legal pipeline. Because in America, suing for damages is as patriotic as eating a hamburger.
We've seen it in the news repeatedly -- customers suing fast food chains for one reason or another. Tommy Tobin, an associate attorney at Perkins Coie and a UCLA School of Law lecturer, told CNN that "food litigation is a fast-growing area of law." Data collected in 2023 from Perkins Coie showed that in that same year, 101 lawsuits were filed, a stark contrast to just 19 in 2008. However, Pooja Nair, a partner of the California-based firm Ervin Cohen and Jessup, claims it's not a rise in plaintiffs wanting to file but rather firms seeing success and subsequently pouring more resources into more lawsuits, resulting in big paychecks.
Nair's take is true, but in the biggest burger chain cases, the plaintiffs seemingly jumped out of the booth and into the courtroom. Whether the customers were sick, offended, or straight-up lying, some of the lawsuits were necessary, but just as many were outrageous.
Read more: Fast Food French Fries Ranked From Worst To Best
Size matters and Burger King knows that. The burger chain is no stranger to controversy, causing chaos when it opened in the 1950s and again in 2023 because of its famous mega-burger, the Whopper. Back then, the issue was the inflated price that came of the big, juicy burger. The recent drama was just the opposite.
In March 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed against Burger King, claiming its famous Whopper contained 35% less meat than advertised. The chain snapped back, not only stressing that the allegations were false but also defending their right to not deliver food exactly like the pictures. They also never promised the percentage of meat their Whoppers include.
Louis Tompros, an intellectual property expert, stated in an interview with Harvard Law Today that it's a situation where "the advertisement is somewhere between a clear factual claim and pure puffery, where you find some of the most interesting cases." He compared it to when Red Bull was sued for claiming its beverage would give you wings. If you don't remember, the energy drink company ended up settling the case for a significant amount of money, despite the absurdity of it all.
Ultimately, the judge let the jury decide "what reasonable people think" (via CBC). With the final verdict still in the works, stuck somewhere in the balance between common sense and common courtesy.
There's a trend in the burger world-- and that's lying about how big your meat is. One customer who felt duped by Wendy's and McDonald's decided to take legal action against the big-name burger chains.
Lumping both brands together, plaintiff Justin Chimienti in the class action complaint accused the restaurants of "unfair and deceptive trade practices" selling burgers that didn't appear as appetizing as on the billboards back in 2022. Specifically, he declared that "fully cooked burgers tend to shrink and look less appetizing," insinuating that the burger chains therefore advertised undercooked burgers and posed a threat to the health of their customers.
On judgment day in the courtroom, the plaintiff displayed a series of "expectation vs. reality" photos, first of beefed-up, picture-perfect ads like the Wendy's Bourbon Bacon Cheeseburger and the McDonald's Big Mac, followed by deflated and dilapidated real-life pictures of the meals. However, despite the accusations, U.S. District Judge Hector Gonzalez concluded there was no factual evidence that McDonald's nor Wendy's falsely advertised. He even doubled down, highlighting the lack of proof that Chimienti had even seen their ads before buying the burgers.
Everyone knows that fast food will harm their health in the long run. They don't, however, expect to experience adverse effects right after eating it. But that's what happened to handfuls of unlucky customers who ate Quarter Pounders linked to an E. coli outbreak in 2024. The damage was widespread, affecting people in 12 different states and leading to 27 hospitalizations and one death. However, the actual number of people affected is likely much higher than what documents show, or so said the CDC.
Sick and angry McDonald's patrons took to their lawyers to sue for damages. Florida man Michael Kraft and Chicago woman Amy McCray, who both suffered negative health symptoms after eating the contaminated cheeseburgers, filed a class action lawsuit against Mickey D's for $5 million for customers who visited the designated restaurant locations from September 27 to October 30. They claimed that the burger chain should have disclosed the contamination risk but failed to do so.
Some people, like Eric Stelly of Illinois and Clarissa DeBock of Nebraska, decided to take the independent road to justice, filing individual lawsuits and requesting customized compensation after being diagnosed with E. coli. In Stelly's statement, he claimed, "Never did I expect to suffer like this after eating a burger" (via USA Today). The restaurant is still doing damage control and isn't expected to fully bounce back until the second quarter of 2025.
Youtuber Mr. Beast boasts one of the most popular chocolate bars on the market. The same can't be said for his burgers, which were so bad that lawyers had to get involved. It all started in 2020 when Mr. Beast launched Mr. Beast Burger using a ghost kitchen concept to cook and deliver his burgers from existing restaurants. Naturally, different kitchens feature different cooks and cleanliness protocols, resulting in inconsistent results. And that was reflected in the sentiment of his food.
While the burgers were a mixed bag, Mr. Beast wanted out of the deal in 2022. He took to his company, Donaldson's Beast Investments, to file a suit against his contractual partner Virtual Dining Concepts, where he accused VDC of harming the Mr. Beast brand and reputation by focusing on growth over quality. In the lawsuit transcript were statements of unsatisfied customers calling the burgers "disgusting," "revolting," and "inedible." Mr. Beast also claimed he earned VDC millions of dollars, of which he was never paid.
Virtual Dining Concepts responded to the YouTube star by countersuing Donaldson's Beast Investments. They seek $100 million in damages for his nonfactual statements and for not fulfilling his end of the contract. Along with causing VDC financial distress, a representative of the business stated, "This case is about a social media celebrity who believes that his fame means that his word does not matter, that the facts do not matter." The lawsuits still remain unresolved.
McNuggets are meant to be crispy, warm, and easily dippable (that's why they're shaped for maximum dunkability), resulting in a joyful and delicious experience. But one Florida girl's McNugget-containing Happy Meal quickly turned sour when she dropped a burning-hot piece of fried chicken on her leg, resulting in second-degree burns.
In 2019, four-year-old Olivia Caraballo was handed her drive-thru order in the car by her mother, Philana Holmes, unaware of the fiery fate that hid inside the Happy Meal bag. She shortly after dropped the "unreasonably and dangerously" hot nugget onto her lap, causing her thigh to be "disfigured and scarred" as a result of the burns, according to the initial lawsuit.
The suit was brought to court by Olivia's parents, stating clear warning instructions should have been included on the packaging to prevent the risk of injuries. The jury ended up awarding her $400,000 for her pain, suffering, and mental anguish, along with another $400,000 to cover any potential future suffering from the injury. Despite drawing parallels to a past lawsuit where a woman spilled a scalding coffee onto her lap, critics argued that it's not common knowledge for a McNugget, especially one included in a children's meal, to be of such high heat caliber.
A Canadian father sued McDonald's for advertising junk food to minors in 2018. But it's not the first time McDonald's has faced backlash after angry parents accused the fast food chain of enticing their children with unhealthy food. In 2010, activist group the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) turned to their lawyers for justice in what they believed was unlawful marketing. "Dangling a toy in front of a kid to try to get them in your restaurant is unfair and deceptive," asserted the Executive Director of CSPI in an interview with ABC News. He elaborated that young children don't understand the concept of advertising and that the technique of luring them in was just as bad as the high-fat, low-nutrient meal itself.
The Vice President of McDonald's clapped back in a private email to ABC, assuring Happy Meals are appropriately sized for children and contain balanced meals that "include Apple Dippers, low-fat caramel dip, and one percent low-fat white milk."​​ Publicly, CSPI was under fire for accusing parents who believe the responsibility falls to the adults to not let their children eat fast food every day rather than to the companies making kids' meal ads.
But the group is no stranger to lawsuits, having won a 2006 claim against Kellogg that resulted in a boost in nutritional ingredients in the foods it markets to children. But this time around, the judge dismissed the claim. A McDonald's spokesperson wrapped up the case, saying they're proud of their Happy Meals and will "vigorously defend" the brand, reputation, and food. And considering the various similar lawsuits that have followed over the past years, they've been doing just that.
Smashburger's day in court wasn't due to a riled-up customer but rather a business-on-business crime. The popular burger chain that boasts high-quality chicken launched a new logo in 2024 in line with a "refreshed brand identity that infuses the company with vibrant new energy and a modern look," as stated in a Smashburger press release. The problem? That sleek orange S shape seemed all too similar to that of an underdog Atlanta-based burger chain called Smalls.
Smalls took immediate action against Smashburger, proclaiming they've been using the eerily similar logo design since 2019 and even have it trademarked. They had just as much issue with Smashburger using their signature "smorange" color as they did with the font. Smashburger claims in a statement that they take the allegations seriously, and though their legal team is currently working on the matter, they are "committed to protecting their brand and stakeholders" (via Restaurant Business Magazine). In the meantime, Smalls insists on protecting their own brand as well as their intellectual property. The case will likely settle, but if it does end up in court, the result could swing either way.
When eating chili, you'll taste ground beef, beans, tomatoes ... and a finger? It's not normal to consume human remains in a bowl of chili, but that's exactly what happened to a Las Vegas woman in 2005. Or so she claimed.
Anna Aayala, with the help of her husband, Jaime Plascencia, sued a San Jose Wendy's after reporting she had chomped on a human finger while dining on her meal. The story quickly made headlines for its absurdity and lack of believability. In fact, during the trial, forensics proved the finger was uncooked and never bitten into, which proved both Wendy's hadn't cooked it and she hadn't eaten it. It was later discovered that Plascencia had purchased the severed finger from his co-worker for $100 and that the couple had traveled to the Bay Area from their hometown, targeting that particular Wendy's to plant the finger before accusingly pointing the finger.
Despite its falsity, Wendy's lost about $1.2 million in revenue due to the incident. Ayala, in turn, was sentenced to nine years in prison but was released five years early for good behavior. Aayala stated, "Let this be an example ... all those young people, learn from this" (via ABC News). We can only hope most young people won't need to (fingers crossed).
Carl's Jr. was the butt of a joke-- and weren't very happy about it. In an advertising campaign for their sirloin burgers, their competitor Jack in the Box insinuated the Angus meat came from a cow's anus. In one ad, Jack in the Box's upside-down ice cream cone-headed mascot was asked to point to the "Angus area" of a cow, to which he shyly replied, "I'd rather not." Another ad showed Jack in the Box employees laughing at the thought of Carl's Jr.'s Angus burgers.
Carl's Jr. and Hardee's parent company, CKE Restaurants Inc., promptly sued Jack in the Box Inc. for unspecified damages, asking that the burger chain run "corrective advertising" and accusing them of cooking burgers with "frozen sirloin butt meat." The company claimed that a high percentage of its customers believed Angus beef came from cows' bottoms as a direct result of the ads.
The Carl's Jr. and Jack in the Box feud went down in 2007 and ended in the plaintiff's defeat, with the court stating that CKE Restaurants didn't have enough evidence to prove their claims. To that, Jack in the Box's then-VP announced in a written statement, "We're glad that common sense prevailed" (via Convenience Store News).
Five Guys has its fair share of secrets, from rewriting its history (it's actually six guys, not five) to insider menu hacks and free extra cheese. But a darker secret in 2016 revealed that 2,206 non-exempt California employees did not receive their lunch or rest breaks as was their right according to state law.
Jeremey Lusk, a manager-in-training at one of the burger chain's California locations, rang the alarm on Five Guys' illegal practices. Other strict state labor laws were violated, including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse gas costs while on the job, and forcing workers to complete duties off the clock.
If you've ever worked in the restaurant industry, you'll know how grueling long shifts on your feet prepping and serving food can be. Still, it took five agreements to settle this Five Guys lawsuit. On the fifth and final try, the judge gave the green light on a $1.2 million payout to the workers involved.
You'd think that ordering a value meal from a restaurant means that you're saving money, right? Actually, that's wrong, at least when ordering McDonald's. On two occasions, customers brought the burger chain to court to argue against meals that promised value but brought deceit.
In 2018, Kelly Killeen of Chicago filed against the Golden Arches after she purchased an Extra Value Meal for $5.08. The problem was, had she ordered the two sausage burritos, hash browns, and coffee that came with the meal separately, she would have only paid $4.97. Likewise, James Gertie of Des Plaines took legal action in 2016 after realizing the contents of his $5.90 value meal cost him 41 more cents than if purchased individually. According to Money, he argued in the lawsuit that it was a case of principle over pennies, stating the meal was "no 'value' at all, let alone an 'extra value,'" accusing McDonald's of consumer fraud and deceptive practices.
The results? Kelly's judge dismissed the case, claiming while the "value" name was misleading, it wasn't deceptive, either, because there was enough information available to make a price comparison. Meanwhile, the conclusion of James' lawsuit is unknown. The biggest lesson from this is to pull out your calculators before ordering your next combo.
Read the original article on Chowhound.