A U.S. judge has rejected Burger King’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit claiming that it cheated hungry customers by making its Whopper sandwich appear larger than it actually is.
U.S. District Judge Roy Altman in Miami said Burger King must defend against a claim that its depiction of Whoppers on in-store menu boards mislead reasonable customers, amounting to a breach of contract.
Customers in the proposed class action accused Burger King of portraying burgers with ingredients that “overflow over the bun,” making it appear the burgers are 35% larger and contain more than double the meat than the chain serves.
I feel like this belongs in !nottheonion.
Yes. BK is probably sizing the bun-to-patty ratio to make them look and seem larger. They also probably make sure to paint their lettuce green so it looks fresher. Or would, if that weren’t already banned by the FDA.
The issue here is it isn’t just ratios. The entire burger itself looks far larger in diameter than it is in reality
In marketing materials, that’s supposed to happen.
If they say it’s a 1/4 pound patty… it’s a 1/4 patty even if the photo is a 1/3 pound patty. Or it’s not then the lawsuit has merit.
The pictures are allowed to be misleading
The pictures are allowed to be misleading
It depends on your perspective. From a consumer protection stand point, sure, marketing based entirely on all the faults of the product might be helpful. “our burgers are designed to be unsatisfying, to make you buy more. they’re loaded with fat and butter and other kinds of fat, and the buns are incredibly sugary to make you addicted and make up for the utter lack of real flavor… and it’s not even entirely beef in that there patty” isn’t really going to sell many burgers.
So from a marketing perspective it is bad. Saying “oh, the photo on the menu makes it appetizing, when it’s not really appetizing” is like… Saying “OH. our photographers and food modelers did a good job!” to them. and that, whether you like me or not, is why you really need to read the menu instead of looking at the advertisements. Whose beef patty is probably made of painted mashed potatoes, painted up in lacquer because it’s hard to keep food fresh enough to get a good photo…
The issue is most fast food restaurants use the advertisement photos on the menu. Sorta leads the customer to believe that’s what they are getting (with some tolerance).
Guess we’ll find out, huh?
Stuff in the ads is very rarely the same as reality. For example, under bright studio lights, ice cream melts pretty quick. Mashed potato doesn’t. Guess what they use.
It depends. If the ad is for ice cream then they have to use ice cream by law. But any toppings can be fake.
If they’re advertising chocolate syrup, the ice cream can be fake but the chocolate syrup has to be real.
Of course. I assumed they were saying it was the burgers itself. As long as the patty was a 1/4 pound patty at some point or whatever they say they serve…it’s going to be hard to argue
People were spray painting lettuce green at one point. And I’m pretty sure they still occasionally dye pistachios red for some reason
I ate ice cream in China that doesn’t melt even if you burn it with a torch
How were the toxic metals?
Meanwhile, ice cream that doesn’t melt…
https://piped.video/watch?v=4p9EI6cRB0c
I remember seeing a show when I was a kid made for kids about deceptive advertising (it was on HBO back when HBO was decent) and they had a segment on all the ways they dress food for food ads. It was fascinating. I remember milk was made from Elmer’s Glue, cereal flakes were chosen from hundreds of boxes to find the perfect ones, and ice cream, which would melt under the hot lights if it were real, was made from vegetable shortening.
oh yeah. Commercial food photography is… a sneaky art. they find textures that are similar and paint them to be what they need. hard gloss like beef juices are lacquer, fruits are made to look fresher with hairspray… and this assumes they’re using fruit at all.
They use motor oil for pancake syrup because it won’t soak into the pancakes.