ARTICLE
29 November 2019

Vegan Alleges Burger King Deceptively Marketed Impossible Whopper

SH
Shook, Hardy & Bacon

Contributor

Shook, Hardy & Bacon has long been recognized as one of the premier litigation firms in the country. For more than a century, the firm has defended companies in their most substantial national and international products liability, mass tort and complex litigation matters.

The firm has leveraged its complex product liability litigation expertise to expand into several other practice areas and advance its mission of “being the best in the world at providing creative and practical solutions at unsurpassed value.” As a result, the firm has built nationally recognized practices in areas such as intellectual property, environmental and toxic tort, employment litigation, commercial litigation, government enforcement and compliance, and public policy.

Aplaintiff has filed a putative class action alleging that Burger King Corp. represented its Impossible Whopper…
United States Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences

A plaintiff has filed a putative class action alleging that Burger King Corp. represented its Impossible Whopper in association with the Impossible Burger, which is “well known as a meat-free and vegan meat alternative,” but cooked the Impossible Whoppers “on the same grills as its traditional meat products, thus covering the outside of the Impossible Whopper’s meat-free patties with meat by-product.” Williams v. Burger King Corp., No. 19-24755 (S.D. Fla., filed November 18, 2019). Burger King advertised the Impossible Whopper as “100% Whopper” and “0% Beef,” leading the plaintiff, a vegan, to rely “on Defendant’s deceptive representations about the Impossible Whopper and believing that the ‘Impossible’ vegan meat patty would be prepared in a manner that maintained its qualities as a vegan (meat-free) burger patty.” The plaintiff alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of Florida’s consumer-protection statute and seeks class certification, damages and a declaration “that Defendant be financially responsible for actually providing a meat-free ‘Impossible’ meat patty when selling its ‘Impossible Whoppers’ to consumers."

Read more food, beverage and agribusiness industry news in the Food & Beverage Litigation Update.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More