Burger King legal issues

Depending on the ownership and executive staff at the time of these incidents, the company's responses to these challenges have ranged from a conciliatory dialog with its critics and litigants to a more aggressive opposition with questionable tactics and negative consequences.

[2] The group and its supporters, with the backing of celebrities including Alec Baldwin, James Cromwell, and Richard Pryor,[3] staged protests outside Burger King restaurants across the United States, calling on the company to establish these new compliance guidelines.

[4] On June 28, 2001, Burger King entered into an agreement with the group and established a contractual framework that defined procedures to ensure that its suppliers were conforming to the agreed-upon standards of animal welfare.

[5][6] In 2006, PETA went before Burger King's board of directors during its parent company's annual corporate meeting to request that poultry suppliers switched to a more-humane method of slaughter called controlled atmosphere killing (CAK).

[8][9] Since the 1980s, several parties, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the City of New York,[11] and the Spanish government,[12] have argued that Burger King has contributed to obesity and unhealthy eating behaviors in Western nations by producing products that contain large amounts of salt, fat, trans-fat and calories.

[14][15] These new offerings, and others like them, have resulted in further international scorn and negative attention due to the large portion size and increased amounts of unhealthy fats and trans-fats in these items.

In a five-month negotiation with Burger King and its then parent Grand Metropolitan PLC (now part of Diageo), the company agreed to post complete nutritional information that complied with the Federal Government's guidelines for the maximum daily recommended intake of fat and sodium.

On the basis of this agreement, New York public health commissioner Mark Green, with support of Mayor David Dinkins, proposed legislation that would require all fast food restaurants to display nutritional data as well.

[12][17] The head of Spain's food regulatory body, Felix Lobo, stated a legal case could be made against Burger King for "illegally failing to comply with a contract".

[21][22] In response to the issue of childhood obesity, Burger King announced in October 2007 that it was joining The Council of Better Business Bureau's Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative.

subsidiary Taco Bell, began to target the chains with protests, letter writing campaigns, and petitions demanding that the companies purchase tomatoes only from suppliers who agree to the pay increase.

[38] In the release, Steven Grover, BK Vice President of Global Food Safety, Quality Assurance, and Regulatory Compliance, confirmed the factuality of the QSR report and that if the dispute between the growers and the CIW continues, the company would go forward with its plans to stop purchasing tomatoes from farms in the Immokalee region.

"[37] In an April 2008 Senate hearing chaired by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) regarding farm conditions, Eric Schlosser, author of the best-selling Fast Food Nation, commented on Burger King's recalcitrance to sign an agreement with the CIW while Yum!

[41] Besides the trolling incident, Grover was tied to several terse, stridently worded e-mails sent from a possibly fictitious employee name at the BK global headquarters in Miami to supporters and media groups;[42] the company labeled these communications as unsanctioned and not reflecting official corporate positions.

[40] Additionally, Burger King was found to have hired an outside security company, Pembroke Pines, Florida based Diplomatic Tactical Services, to infiltrate the CIW and its supporting groups and spy on their members.

Critics of the personnel action, such as PR Watch editor Sheldon Rampton, noted that it appeared that the two terminated employees were being made scapegoats by the company.

[44] In the summer of 1999, a geopolitical dispute with the global Islamic community and Jewish groups in the United States and Israel arose over an Israeli franchisee opening stores in the Israeli-occupied territories.

When a British Muslim named Rashad Akhtar, a resident of the community of High Wycombe, was presented with the ice cream cone in a Park Royal Burger King restaurant, he noticed the resemblance and became angered at what he felt was an offense to the Islamic faith.

[64][66][notes 2] After Burger King Corporation lost the case, it decided to terminate its operations in the country, and in July 2002, the company transferred its assets to its New Zealand franchise group, Trans-Pacific Foods (TPF).

An additional part of the agreement required Burger King Corporation to provide administrative and advertising support as to insure a common marketing scheme for the company and its products.

However, during this time disagreements arose between the partners and Burger King over issues of rent, construction fees, building designs and the assignment of legal liabilities.

MacShara and Ruzewicz finally signed their franchise agreement after gaining limited concessions over the issues, with Rudzewicz assuming a 20-year, $1,000,000 financial obligation over the life of the contract.

[70] Due to a recessionary period in the United States beginning with the energy crisis in late 1979, sales began to decline at the location and the partnership failed to pay their required franchise fees and rent service to Burger King Corporation.

After attempts over the intervening months to negotiate a compromise with MacShara and Ruzewicz failed,[notes 3] Burger King terminated the franchise agreement and ordered the pair to vacate the property.

[70] The defendants, MacShara and Rudzewicz, filed a motion to dismiss the case on the argument as Michigan residents, the District Court of Southern Florida did not have jurisdiction.

The partners filed a counter claim and alleged Burger King had violated Michigan's Franchise Investment Law and sought damages and fees.

[73] Burger King then filed an appeal to the US Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on its merits, after which it would decide if it had jurisdiction to grant a writ of certiorari.

[70][72][74] The decision in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, has been criticized as complicating "personal jurisdiction jurisprudence by creating, in dicta, a new bifurcated test" that duplicates a venue analysis, adds little to the minimum contacts inquiry, hinders predictability, is a burdensome process, and potentially allows a plaintiff to manipulate a defendant's constitutional rights.

Because of its use as a case study in American law schools, one of the most prominent incidents of infringement in the United States occurred with the similarly named Burger King located in Mattoon, Illinois.

The Hootses, claiming that their trademark gave them exclusive rights to the name in Illinois sued BK in the state, and later federal, courts under the case Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots 403 F.2d 904 (7th Cir.