Class Action Claims Dunkin' Donuts Offers Fake Angus Steak in Sandwiches [UPDATE]
Last Updated on July 7, 2022
Case Update
April 1, 2020 – Dismissal Upheld by Second Circuit Court
The dismissal of the proposed class action lawsuit detailed on this page has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed that the plaintiff failed to allege a plausible violation of New York’s General Business Law.
More specifically, the Second Circuit ruled that a reasonable consumer who bought one of Dunkin’ Donuts’ angus steak products would not be misled into believing they’d bought an “unadulterated piece of meat” as the plaintiff alleged. Per the Second Circuit, the products, which sell for no more than $4, are marketed by Dunkin’ Donuts as a “grab-and-go” food that can be consumed “without the need for a fork and knife.” The Second Circuit thusly affirmed that Dunkin’ Donuts, given the detail in its television ads, did not obscure the nature of the angus ground beef products at the center of the litigation.
“Moreover, while the word ‘steak’ can refer to ‘a slice of meat,’ it is also defined as ‘ground beef prepared for cooking or for serving in the manner of steak,’” the Second Circuit wrote.
Lastly, the Second Circuit struck down the proposed reinstatement of claims from a number of plaintiffs who reside outside of New York over jurisdictional issues. The Second Circuit held that a foreign corporation’s mere registration to do business in a state does not constitute consent to general personal jurisdiction.
May 13, 2019 – After Dismissal, Dunkin’ Donuts Fights Plaintiffs' Appeal to Revive Suit
The lawsuit detailed on this page has been dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Carol Bagley Amon, who said the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege Dunkin’ Donuts acted deceptively under New York’s General Business Law. The plaintiff is now attempting to appeal the dismissal.
In her memorandum granting Dunkin’ Donuts’ motion to dismiss a second amended false advertising case, Judge Bagley Amon wrote that although the plaintiff, citing TV ads, claimed a reasonable consumer would take “steak” to mean “an intact cut of meat,” the defendant’s advertisements—in particular close-ups of an angus steak sandwich and wrap—do not obscure the actual nature of the products.
“A review of those segments reveals that a viewer sees zoomed-in pictures of the sandwich and wrap, with ground-meat patties,” the judge said. “[The plaintiff] does not dispute that the television advertisements show the products, but he argues that the advertisements ‘obscure the products' beef patties with actors' hands, sandwich breads, and text.’ But…the close-ups of the products are not obscured.”
The plaintiff, however, is looking to revive the suit, to which Dunkin’ has argued that reasonable consumers know up front what they’re getting from the coffee chain.
"Reasonable consumers are aware that Dunkin' is not a white-tablecloth steakhouse. It is a quick-service food chain, serving coffee, donuts, breakfast foods, and similar products," Dunkin’s counsel said. "It simply is not reasonable for a consumer like Chen to view Dunkin's advertisements, walk into a Dunkin' franchise, purchase one of the sandwiches or wraps, and expect to receive a single, full, intact piece of steak."
The memo granting the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint can be read here. Dunkin’ Donuts’ argument against the appeal can be read here.
A consumer from New York claims in a proposed class action lawsuit that Dunkin’ Donuts fraudulently and deceptively advertises and sells its “Angus Steak and Egg Sandwich” and “Angus Steak and Egg Snack N’ Go Wrap” products because neither contain actual angus steak. The 40-page lawsuit claims consumers nationwide have fallen for Dunkin’ Donuts’ misrepresentations and ended up paying a premium price for an inferior product.
“Each person who has purchased [Dunkin Donuts’] product, including the plaintiff, has been exposed to [the defendant’s] misleading advertising message and purchased the product as a result of that advertising,” the case alleges.
The lawsuit alleges the defendant, Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., has violated consumer fraud and unjust enrichment laws in all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia.
The official definition of “steak” matters here
At issue in the lawsuit is what a reasonable consumer expects to receive when a product is called “steak.” The complaint notes “steak” is defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Code of Federal Regulations as a “product [which] consists of a boneless slice or strip of poultry meat of the kind indicated.” Consumers who purchase the abovementioned Dunkin’ Donuts products, instead, allegedly receive a beef patty the lawsuit describes as “an inferior product of minced meat” containing “fillers and binders.”
“The ‘steak’ in the Dunkin’ Donut product, however, is not ‘steak,’” the case alleges. “Instead, it is a beef ‘patty,’ not even a beef ‘burger.’”
At a more technical level, the case notes that by the USDA definition, a true Angus burger consists “of chopped fresh and/or frozen beef” with or without added beef fat and/or seasoning. Real Angus patties, the USDA decreed, cannot contain more than 30 percent fat nor added water, phosphates, binders or extenders.
The plaintiff claims Dunkin’ Donuts Angus steak products fail to hit even these benchmarks, arguing its “Angus Steak and Egg Sandwich” and “Angus Steak and Egg Snack N’ Go Wrap” come with beef patties that contain binders or extenders, not to mention defatted beef fatty tissue mixed with enough water “such that the product characteristics are essentially that of a meat patty.”
“A reasonable customer understands [the defendant’s] ‘steak’ claims to mean that the products feature Angus ‘steak,’ and not burgers or patties,” the lawsuit reads.
Intentional Misrepresentation?
The centerpiece of the plaintiff’s argument undoubtedly is Dunkin’ Donuts representations in television commercials of its alleged angus steak products. And by centerpiece, we mean 10 pages of the 40-page complaint are dedicated solely to breaking down Dunkin Donuts’ TV commercials that the case alleges are meant to “trick unsuspecting consumers” into purchasing merely beef patty and egg sandwiches.
Dunkin’ Donuts’ “Fellow-Steak-Lover Handshake,” “Angus Steak & Egg Sandwich,” and “Angus Steak Big N’ Toasted” commercials in particular, the case claims, are material to consumers’ understanding of the nature of the purported Angus products. In fact, a breakdown of the dialogue and narrative for each of the commercials shows the word steak used 26 times across the three short TV spots, the suit claims.
Who’s covered by the lawsuit?
The lawsuit seeks to cover a proposed class of consumers who were charged a premium price for either Dunkin’ Donuts’ Angus Steak and Egg Sandwich (on a plain bagel, croissant, English muffin, multigrain flat bread, or Texas Toast) or an Angus Steak and Egg Snack N’ Go Wrap (formerly called the “Angus Steak and Egg Wake-Up Wrap”). The case also seeks to certify a New York subclass of consumers who purchased the sandwiches at any time during the court-appointed class period.
The full complaint can be read below.
Hair Relaxer Lawsuits
Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.
Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits
Stay Current
Sign Up For
Our Newsletter
New cases and investigations, settlement deadlines, and news straight to your inbox.
A note on class action complaints:
Bear in mind that the information in this blog post summarizes the allegations put forth in the following legal complaint. At the time of this writing, nothing has been proven in court. Anyone can file a lawsuit, with or without the representation of an attorney, for any reason, and ClassAction.org takes no position on the merits of the suit. Class action complaints are a matter of public record, and our objective on this website is merely to share the information in these legal documents in an easily digestible way.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.