Burger King is sued because of how the Whopper looks on posters - here are other outrageous fast food lawsuits

There's a long-running - and slightly bemusing - history of fast-food chains being sued for some pretty absurd reasons. And the latest fits right into that trend.

Burger King is being sued in the US after a lawsuit accused the American fast-food giant of misleading customers over its Whopper burger. It states that customers have been misled over how the burger appears in advertisements with a meatier patty and ingredients that "overflow the bun".

While Burger King refutes the claims, Burger King must face the class action lawsuit - a judge has ruled- that also alleged that Burger King made the Whopper look 35% bigger with more than twice the amount of meat that customers actually receive.

US District Judge Roy Altman said it should be left to jurors to "tell us what reasonable people think" - although the judge did dismiss claims of misleading television and online advertisements.

The details of the lawsuit are interesting to say the least and hold similarities to some previous lawsuits that have been brought against fast-food giants. However, some blow Burger King's latest legal trouble out of the water in terms of how strange they are.

Back in 2010 in the UK, an advertisement for a Burger King chicken sandwich was banned after complaints were upheld that the product was much smaller than in adverts.

Another Burger King lawsuit from nearly 20 years ago was when a New York woman kicked off at how the chain charged different prices at different locations.

Many of us might see this as a fact of life, but one woman took her case to small claims court seeking $100 in damages after a large coke at a location near her home was 89 cents but one six blocks away was priced at 69 cents.

Despite not showing up, Burger King won the case.

McDonald's

Ahh the infamous hot coffee lawsuit that makes a lot more sense when you read into it.

In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck’s McDonald’s coffee spilled all over her when she was trying to remove the lid.

We all know coffee is served hot, but Stella suffered third-degree burns that required skin grafts, and ended up suing McDonald’s after they didn't reimburse her $10,000 medical bills.

A few years back in 2020, a Florida man sued McDonald's after he bit into a chicken nugget only to find a bone that was nearly an inch-long inside that caused him two micro-cracks in a tooth and a whole lot of pain.

He promptly sued McDonald's for $1.1 million.

Adding to this, last year a New York man also took his fight against McDonald's to the courts where he also alleged that burgers in advertisements were bigger than they actually were. The man deemed this to be an unfair and deceptive trading practice.

Justin Chimienti was seeking $50m in damages for himself and other customers who also felt misled.

Wendy's

This US fast-food chain was also accused of the same bad practices in the lawsuit brought forward by Mr Chimienti.

Subway

In January 2021, a California lawsuit alleged that Subway’s tuna was made of a “mixture of various concoctions.”

The New York Times conducted a test of samples from three different Los Angeles Subway locations. The lab was unable to identify DNA from any of five different species of tuna.

In June 2021, the plaintiffs then alleged Subway was mislabelling the product, calling it “100 percent sustainably caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna” when it was not 100 percent and might not even be those types of tuna.

This created especially bad press for Subway just after a December 2020 court ruling in Ireland that their bread contained too much sugar to be called “bread”.

Taco Bell

Earlier this year, Taco Bell also faced a class-action lawsuit in the US for selling pizzas and wraps that were said to contain less filling than advertised.

But back in 2019, Rco Bell faced a different lawsuit. A New Jersey couple filed a lawsuit, alleging that they purchased two of Taco Bell’s “$5 Chalupa Craving Boxes” and were charged more than five dollars for each.

They deemed this to be false advertising and requested compensation for “the time wasted driving to Taco Bell [and] the gasoline expended to drive their vehicle to the subject Taco Bell,” arguing that it was the $5 price point, advertised in a Taco Bell commercial, that “induced” them to make the trip.

The case went to federal court in October, with Taco Bell spokespeople arguing that the commercial they saw contained a “prices may vary” disclaimer.