Vegan Grills Burger King Over Impossible Whopper, Files Class Action
A Georgia vegan alleges in Florida court that Burger King Corp. duped him into thinking he was eating a meat-free Impossible Whopper, which it cooked on the same grill as meat patties.
November 19, 2019 at 02:07 PM
3 minute read
Burger King Corp.'s introduction of the Impossible Whopper, a plant-based alternative to its famed burger, has been hailed an innovative and profitable way of providing vegan and vegetarian consumers a seat at the fast food table.
But one Georgia vegan claims this is too good to be true. He alleges the Impossible Whopper is cooked on the same grills as meat patties, "thus covering the outside of the Impossible Whopper's meat-free patties with meat by-product."
Tallahassee attorney David Patrick Healy of Dudley, Seller, Healy, Heath & Desmond represents Phillip Williams, who has filed a putative class-action complaint in the Southern District of Florida.
The suit accuses the Florida-based fast food chain of breach of contract, deceptive and unfair trade practices and unjust enrichment. It states Williams' strict vegan diet means he doesn't eat or drink anything that contains animal byproducts, and claims he inadvertently broke that rule after paying a "premium" price for what he thought was a meat-free burger.
After hearing about the Impossible Whopper through word-of-mouth and social media adverts, Williams says he ordered one without mayonnaise at an Atlanta drive-thru in August 2019.
"After checking that his Impossible Whopper did not contain mayonnaise, plaintiff proceeded to eat the Impossible Whopper believing that it was a meat-free option," the complaint said. "However, plaintiff had been duped by Burger King's deceptive practices into eating a meat-free Whopper Patty that was in fact covered in meat by-products."
The complaint says Williams made the discovery through "personal knowledge as to his own acts and experiences" and an investigation conducted by his attorneys, as Burger King's menu and advertisements gave no hint that the Impossible Whopper could be contaminated by meat.
And Williams is not alone, according to the suit.
"Indeed, there are numerous consumer complaints posted online from customers who have been outraged upon finding out that the Impossible Whopper is prepared on the same grills as Burger King's traditional meat products," the complaint said.
Prices vary across the U.S., but an Impossible Whopper typically costs around $5.49, while the original Whopper costs about $4.49. The lawsuit claims at least $5 million is at stake.
Burger King declined to comment. In reference to the Impossible Burger, its website says, "For guests looking for a meat-free option, a non-broiler method of preparation is available upon request."
In addition to damages, attorney fees and costs, the lawsuit seeks an injunction that would force Burger King to disclose that its Impossible Whopper is cooked on the same grill as meat patties and require its future marketing to comply with Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices.
Plaintiffs attorney Healy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro will preside over the case.
|Read the complaint:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readAkerman Opens Charlotte Office With Focus on Renewable Energy, Data Center Practices
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome', DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250