Vegan Brings Putative Class Action Against Burger King Over Impossible Whopper
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 21, 2019 at 10:07 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
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:
Putative Class Action Alleges Florida Company Leads 'Wild West' of Cannabis Industry
Not Enough Meat on Case Against McDonald's Quarter Pounder, Court Rules
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
© 2025 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 AllLitigators of the Week: After Two Big Wins for Plaintiffs, a Defense Verdict for Infant Formula Makers
Litigators of the Week: King & Spalding Gets 2nd Circuit to Uphold 'All Natural' Win For Kind Bar Maker
How Overseeing Legal Operations Has Affected How Steve Mahieu of Kraft Heinz Looks at Litigation
Litigators of the Week: Proskauer Scores a Defense Win for Last Defendant Standing in Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
Trending Stories
- 1SurePoint Acquires Legal Practice Management Company ZenCase
- 2Day Pitney Announces Partner Elevations
- 3The New Rules of AI: Part 2—Designing and Implementing Governance Programs
- 4Plaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
- 5As Litigation Finance Industry Matures, Links With Insurance Tighten
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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