⚠️Article status notice: This article has been marked as incomplete
This article needs additional work for its sourcing and verifiability to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues.
This notice will be removed once sufficient documentation has been added to establish the systemic nature of these issues. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the discord and post to the #appeals channel.
Learn more ▼
This Article Requires Additional Verification
This article has been flagged due to verification concerns. While the topic might have merit, the claims presented lack citations that live up to our standards, or rely on sources that are questionable or unverifiable by our standards. Articles must meet the Moderator Guidelines and Mission statement; factual accuracy and systemic relevance are required for inclusion here!
Why This Article Is In Question
Articles in this wiki are required to:
Provide verifiable & credible evidence to substantiate claims.
Avoid relying on anecdotal, unsourced, or suspicious citations that lack legitimacy.
Make sure that all claims are backed by reliable documentation or reporting from reputable sources.
Examples of issues that trigger this notice:
A topic that heavily relies on forum posts, personal blogs, or other unverifiable sources.
Unsupported claims with no evidence or citations to back them up.
Citations to disreputable sources, like non-expert blogs or sites known for spreading misinformation.
How You Can Improve This Article
To address verification concerns:
Replace or supplement weak citations with credible, verifiable sources.
Make sure that claims are backed by reputable reporting or independent documentation.
Provide additional evidence to demonstrate systemic relevance and factual accuracy. For example:
Avoid: Claims based entirely on personal anecdotes or hearsay without supporting documentation.
Include: Corporate policies, internal communications, receipts, repair logs, verifiable video evidence, or credible investigative reports.
If you believe this notice has been placed in error, or once the article has been updated to address these concerns, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the #appeals channel on our Discord server: Join here.
This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the Burger King category.
The German TV investigation (2022)
A German TV show going by Team Wallraff released the episode "Disgust, Exploitation, and Scandals", on 10 October 2022, highlighting the company's several health violations, including:[1]
Customers were served moldy bread, usually up to 3 months old, and were partially cooked so customers wouldn't notice
Employees didn't wash their hands after smoking, taking out trash, or using the bathroom
One Restaurant was infected with Mice
Expired contents in Sauce bottles were added with new sauce without being washed.
Pushed back expiry dates on products until sold
After the episode aired, Burger King shut down all of the locations aired on the episode and released a public statement via their website, announcing plans to remodel over 100 restaurants, leadership changes with human resources director, and setting up a whistleblower hotline for any staff-related concerns.[2][3]
"clear training and operating standards are a top priority. Whenever we see an example of our strict standards not being followed, we accept the accountability of needing to train better and manage more thoroughly." -- Heather McIntyre
Burger King Advertisement ProductBurger King Actual Burger Product
Whopper advertisement lawsuit (2022—)
On 28 March 2022, Walter Coleman, Marco DiLeonardo, Matthew Fox and Madelyn Salzman, and several other customers filed a lawsuit against Burger King for allegedly false advertising by showing their burgers to appear 35% larger than the actual product. On 5 May 2025, U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman allowed the case to proceed, citing enough justification for it to not be a "mere exaggeration".[4]
A Burger King spokesman responded that "the plaintiffs claims are false. The flame-grilled beef patties portrayed in our advertising are the same patties used in the millions of burgers we serve to Guests across the U.S.".[5]
On 2 December 2025, Judge Altman ruled that the plaintiffs' lawsuit would not be granted class-action status due to the claims being too dissimilar to be joined into a single case.[6]
