The origin of plaintiff Phillip Williams based his lawsuit in Miami on the fact that he wouldn't have bought the Burger, if he had known where he is being prepared. Like "Consumer Affairs" reported that he was of the opinion, which was also supported by the other six plaintiffs, that the presentation of the Burgers would be guided by Burger King in the insane. The "Impossible Whopper" had been marketed as a vegetarian product and, accordingly, also sold at a higher price.
the fact that he would, however, be cooked on the same Grill as the beef patties, he was contaminated. The "Impossible Whopper" more by this preparation step, a vegetarian, and Burger King would give out false promises to its customers.
More of the action, you can read here...court decides: Burger King deceives customers are not aware of
last year, when the lawsuit was filed, had called Impossible Foods, which had been involved in the development of the Burgers, in a Statement about the allegations: The "Impossible Whopper" was not designed for Vegans or vegetarians, but for meat-eaters, based more on plant products in your diet to accommodate.
this should ultimately be the decisive point for the court was: "Burger King has promised a meat-free Patty, and delivered," said judge Raag Singhal in his rejection of the claim.
it's So easy: Cleaning your Grill with a quick Trick, FOCUS Online it's So easy: Cleaning your Grill with a quick Trickkas Updated Date: 24 July 2020, 13:27