There is no single Burger King lawsuit settlement. Instead, the chain and its franchisees have resolved or are currently defending a wide portfolio of cases covering false advertising, worker no-poach agreements, biometric privacy, fax marketing, employment discrimination, wage theft, personal injury, web tracking, and disability access. Payouts to date range from $25,000 in a single EEOC religious discrimination matter to an $8.5 million fax advertising fund, and several of the biggest cases, including the Whopper size class action and a worker antitrust suit heading to trial in 2027, remain unresolved.
Whopper Size False Advertising Case
The most publicized suit is Coleman v. Burger King Corp. (No. 22-20925), filed in 2022 in the Southern District of Florida by 19 plaintiffs from 13 states. The complaint alleges Burger King’s advertising made the Whopper appear about 35 percent larger and contain more than double the meat of what is actually served, and asserts state consumer-protection violations, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.1NBC News. Judge Allows Lawsuit Over Burger King’s Whopper Ads to Move Forward
On May 5, 2025, U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman denied Burger King’s motion to dismiss, finding the allegations “go beyond mere exaggeration or puffery” and that reasonable consumers could plausibly be misled. Claims tied to in-store menu boards survived; claims based on television and online ads were dismissed.2Justia. Coleman v. Burger King Corp., No. 22-CV-20925
On November 25, 2025, Judge Altman denied nationwide class certification, calling the proposed class an “administrative nightmare” because individual questions about which ads each consumer saw, differences among state laws, and arbitration agreements with some class members would overwhelm common issues.3Bloomberg Law. Burger King Avoids Class Certification in Suit Over Whopper Size The case is still active but has no settlement, and its path without a certified class is uncertain.
Worker No-Poach Cases
Until roughly September 2018, Burger King’s standard franchise contracts included “no-poach” clauses barring franchisees from hiring workers away from other Burger King locations. Those clauses produced both government settlements and a private antitrust suit that is still pending.
State Attorney General Agreements
In September 2018, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced that Burger King would remove no-poach language from all current and future franchise contracts nationwide, covering about 7,226 restaurants. Ferguson’s office concluded the provisions violated Washington’s consumer-protection law by suppressing wages.4Washington Attorney General. AG Ferguson Secures End to No-Poach Provisions at Eight More Restaurant Chains
A broader 2020 agreement with attorneys general from 14 states and the District of Columbia required Burger King to stop enforcing the clauses, ask existing franchisees to sign amendments removing them, and post employee notices. The deal set penalties of up to $100,000 for a breach that results in a refusal to hire and up to $10,000 for other material violations. Burger King denied wrongdoing.5California Attorney General. Burger King No-Poach Final Executed Agreement
Arrington Antitrust Class Action
A parallel private case, Arrington v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc. (No. 18-24128, S.D. Fla.), alleges the same no-hire provisions violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. After the Eleventh Circuit revived the case in 2022 and the district court denied a renewed motion to dismiss in June 2025, a jury trial is scheduled for May 3, 2027. Burger King denies misconduct and says there is no evidence the policy actually suppressed wages.6Verdict Foodservice. Burger King US Antitrust Lawsuit
TOMS King Fingerprint Privacy Settlement
A Burger King franchisee operating in Illinois settled Mendenhall v. TOMS King (Illinois), LLC (No. 2019-CH-10636), a class action alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Employees said TOMS King required fingerprint scans at a biometric point-of-sale system without the notices and consent BIPA requires.7CPT Group. Mendenhall v. Toms King (Illinois), LLC and Toms King, LLC
The settlement created a $1,475,000 fund for workers who scanned at TOMS King-owned Burger King locations in Illinois between September 13, 2014, and January 2, 2023. Class members did not have to file a claim; payments of roughly $180 per person were to be mailed automatically after the January 30, 2025 final approval hearing.8CPT Group Case Info. Notice of Class Action Settlement, Mendenhall v. TOMS King
$8.5 Million Fax Marketing Settlement
Burger King agreed to an $8.5 million settlement over its “BK Delivers” fax campaign, which allegedly sent advertisements to about 97,000 recipients without the opt-out notice required by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Class members were eligible for up to $500 per fax, capped at $4,000 per recipient. The settlement was submitted for preliminary approval in Maryland federal court in late 2014.9Manatt. Burger King Settles TCPA Suit for Whopping $8.5M
EEOC Discrimination Settlements
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has resolved multiple cases against Burger King franchisees through consent decrees.
In January 2013, Fries Restaurant Management, a Dallas-based franchisee, paid $25,000 to settle EEOC religious discrimination charges after firing a teenage Christian Pentecostal employee who asked to wear a skirt instead of uniform pants. The consent decree also required anti-discrimination training for Texas managers.10EEOC. Burger King Franchisee Settles EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit
In January 2023, North Georgia Foods, Inc., operator of a Burger King in Murphy, North Carolina, paid $60,000 to resolve EEOC allegations that a female worker was sexually harassed by an assistant manager between 2018 and 2019, and that the company retaliated against her complaints and discriminated based on pregnancy. The two-year consent decree required revised policies, employee training, and an off-site reporting phone number.11EEOC. Burger King Franchise to Pay $60,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Suit
$2.2 Million California Wage Theft Order
In January 2023, the California Labor Commissioner’s Office ordered Golden Gate Restaurant Group, operator of six Burger King locations in San Francisco, to pay $2.2 million to 230 workers for wage violations occurring between 2016 and 2019. The order included $724,000 in unpaid wages, $371,000 in interest, and $1.2 million in penalties. Investigators found the franchisee failed to pay overtime, denied meal breaks, tampered with time cards, and falsified records to make it look like breaks had been taken.12Fortune. Burger King Owners Owe $2.2 Million to Workers in Unpaid Wages Franchise owners Monu Singh and Harkiran Randhawa were held personally liable, and their attorney called the investigation flawed and signaled an appeal.13Business Insider. Burger King Franchise Owner Ordered to Pay Millions to Workers
$7.8 Million Slip-and-Fall Verdict, Reversed on Damages
In 2023 a Florida jury awarded Richard Tulecki $7.8 million after he slipped on a greasy restroom floor at a Hollywood, Florida, Burger King in July 2019. The fall caused back injuries requiring surgery, which led to a perforated colon. The jury found the franchisee, Seven Restaurants LLC, fully negligent and awarded $3 million for lost future earning capacity, about $2.77 million for future pain and suffering, and roughly $700,000 in medical expenses. The court entered a reduced judgment of $7.68 million after accounting for insurance-covered medical costs.14CBS News. Burger King Lawsuit Injury $8 Million
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal later reversed and ordered a new trial on damages, holding that the trial judge erred by allowing a doctor to offer a new mid-trial opinion about the cause of the colon perforation. The liability finding stood, so the franchisee remains legally negligent, but the amount owed will be decided at retrial.15Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida. Seven Restaurants, LLC v. Tulecki, No. 4D2023-1925
Web Tracking Privacy Suit
Pemberton v. Restaurant Brands International Inc. (No. 3:25-cv-03647, N.D. Cal.) alleges Burger King’s parent company violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act by using third-party cookies to track website visitors who had opted out of data sharing. In September 2025, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the company’s bid to compel arbitration, finding the website did not provide “reasonably conspicuous notice” of its terms.16Top Class Actions. Judge Tells Burger King It Must Face Class Action Allegations of Illegal Web Tracking After a partial motion to dismiss in November 2025, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in January 2026. No settlement or class certification exists as of mid-2026.17CourtListener. Pemberton v. Restaurant Brands International Inc., Docket
ADA Accessibility Settlement
In November 2022, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan resolved an Americans with Disabilities Act complaint against a Burger King in Indian River, Michigan, after a wheelchair user alleged the restrooms were inaccessible. The restaurant remodeled its restrooms to meet ADA standards, agreed to maintain a barrier-free facility, and paid monetary compensation to the complainant’s spouse.18U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. Attorney’s Office Resolves ADA Accessibility Complaint With Burger King Restaurant in Indian River