“Not Being Heard Is No Reason For Silence”  – Victor Hugo

Bradley/Grombacher gives a voice to those injured by big insurance, pharmaceutical and Fortune 500 companies and works tirelessly to vindicate the rights of our clients who have been wronged.

McDonald's False Advertising Lawsuit Takes Aim at Claims of “100% Chicken Breast Sandwiches”

A new McDonald’s false advertising lawsuit has been filed on behalf of consumers who argue that the marketing materials for the fast food giant are not accurate and may mislead consumers to make a decision about a chicken breast sandwich that is not truly as natural as claimed. Several of the products involved include their chicken breast fillet salads, their chicken breast fillet sandwiches and the chicken breast fillet wraps.

McDonald's False Advertising Lawsuit Claims Chicken Products Not as Marketed

The marketing campaign, according to the McDonald’s false advertising lawsuit, is false, misleading, and deceptive because the chicken breast fillet that is purported to be 100% chicken breast includes rib meat in addition to actual chicken breast. According to the McDonald’s false advertising lawsuit, the plaintiffs, in addition to class members, paid a premium for the products over and above any comparable products that did not allege to include only 100% chicken breast fillet.

The McDonald’s false advertising lawsuit claims that the McDonald’s is responsible for continuing in systemic practices of disseminating misleading and false information via the internet, point of purchase advertisements, national print advertisement and television commercials.

In recent years, legal claims like this one have been filed not only to hold a company accountable for alleged false advertising but also to warn other consumers and to increase the standards for advertising in numerous different industries. Claims have been filed against companies like Kevita Kombucha and Horizon Milk for falsely claiming certain properties in their products. False advertising and labeling laws are in place to help consumers make educated decisions regarding their purchasing power so that no one is duped into buying something not billed as sold.

Is the McDonald’s Fillet Made of 100% Chicken?

Allegedly, the McDonald’s false advertising lawsuit was filed after a discovery that the 100% chicken breast fillet is not an accurate claim because other inferior products such as the McChicken sandwich sold at McDonald’s are of a similar make up as the products they claim to be 100% chicken breast. Determining whether or not the labelling of such a product is misleading has to do with whether or not it would be deceptive or misleading to a reasonable person. McDonald’s false advertising lawsuit may require the maker of the products to update their advertising materials, if the plaintiff and class members are successful.

What Consumers Should Know About False Advertising Lawsuits

Marketing and labeling materials are used to help consumers arrive at an effective decision about what they are willing to pay for a particular product. Further, using marketing material that is misleading is prohibited under the law. Consumers who think they have been duped by a mismarketing scheme can file a false advertising lawsuit to hold the company accountable. Successful plaintiffs can be reimbursed for money they spent on the falsely advertised products and can also get a court order requiring the company to change their advertising so others are not tricked.

If you or someone you know has been duped by McDonald’s or another company’s false advertising contact an experienced lawyer for consumer class action lawsuits at Bradley/Grombacher. They can help you recover and stop the deceptive marketing. 

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit. 

Categories

Request a Free Consultation

If you feel that your rights have been violated, call our experienced attorneys for a free evaluation.

Our Notable Victories

  • Galvan v. Doe $6,750,000
  • Valenzuela v. Doe $6,200,000
  • Gaisano v. Doe Tire Company $1,675,000
  • Smuckler v. City of South Pasadena $4,000,000
  • Gutierrez v. Dole $2,455,000
  • Gould v. Casares $2,450,000
  • Gonzalez v. Brown $2,000,000
  • Silberberg v. Titus $1,800,000
  • Doe Plaintiffs v. Doe Tire Company $1,675,000
  • Buffington v. HDMC $1,400,000
/

Reasons Why Clients Continue to Choose Us

  • No upfront payments required. We get paid when you do!
  • Excellent communication & access to our attorneys.
  • Proven track record of success. Just take a look at our cases!
  • Hablamos Español! We can assist you in both English and Spanish.

Highly Esteemed & Accomplished

  • We highly recommend!

    “Marcus guided us through the entire process with professionalism & compassion. His knowledge, thoroughness, and experience ensured the best possible outcome for our case and we highly recommend him.”

    - Kylie & Daniel C.
  • Marcus Bradley is a wonderful lawyer.

    “This settlement made it possible for my sister to have a much better life than I thought would be possible.”

    - Ellen T.
/

Your Rights Deserve Justice

Schedule a Free Consultation
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.