Marketing "Steak" Sandwich Shown To Contain Ground Beef Not Actionable As Deceptive

HK
Holland & Knight

Contributor

Holland & Knight is a global law firm with nearly 2,000 lawyers in offices throughout the world. Our attorneys provide representation in litigation, business, real estate, healthcare and governmental law. Interdisciplinary practice groups and industry-based teams provide clients with access to attorneys throughout the firm, regardless of location.
Marketing "Steak" Sandwich Shown to Contain Ground Beef Not Actionable as Deceptive.
United States Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In Chufen-Chen v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc., 954 F. 3d 492 (2d Cir. 2020), the court affirmed dismissal of consumers' claims that a company's advertisements for sandwich products using the word "steak" but depicting a beef patty were not actionable as false advertising or deceptive acts under New York law. The court determined that all three advertisements of the so-called "Angus Steak & Egg Breakfast Sandwich" and "Angus Steak & Egg Wake Up Wrap" conclude with multiple zoomed-in images that clearly show the "steak" in the products as a beef patty. The court also observed that there are examples of ground beef serving as "steak" such as in chopped steak, hamburger steak and Salisbury steak; the products sold in fact contain "Angus beef"; and a reasonable consumer would not be misled to believe that "grab-and-go products that can be consumed in hand, without the need for a fork and knife" contained an "unadulterated piece of meat." The court dismissed the claims of several plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction because they purchased the products at franchises outside of New York. A foreign corporation does not consent to general personal jurisdiction in New York by merely registering to do business in the state and designating an in-state agent for service of process. The plaintiffs waived because they failed to raise in the district court the argument that Dunkin' consented to general personal jurisdiction due to contacts with New York.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More