A settlement has been reached with Burger King Corporation (“BKC” or “Defendant”) in a class action lawsuit alleging that certain Burger King® restaurants charged a higher price for two modified CROISSAN’WICH®breakfast sandwiches (each a “Croissan’wich”) when consumers redeemed a buy-one-get-one-free (“BOGO”) coupon than they would have if the consumer had purchased a single unmodified Croissan’wich without a BOGO coupon. BKC denies that it did anything wrong and the Court has not decided who is right.
You may be included in the settlement if, during October 1, 2015 and May 19, 2017 (the “Class Period”), you purchased two or more modified CROISSAN’WICH® breakfast sandwiches (without egg, cheese and/or a meat) from a BURGER KING® restaurant, redeemed a BOGO coupon in connection with the purchase, and paid more than the amount that restaurant was charging at the time for a single, unmodified, higher-priced Croissan’wich you ordered.
As part of the settlement, BKC will make $5 payments or provide $2 gift cards to those who submit a valid Claim Form. In addition, BKC and its employees have implemented corrective changes at the point of sale.
If you are included in the settlement and want to file a claim for these benefits, you must file a claim form by January 19, 2018. You can obtain a claim form at www.bkcbogosettlement.com, by calling 1-877-468-0436 or by writing to Anderson v. Burger King Corporation, Settlement Administrator, PO Box 404000, Louisville, KY 40233-4000. You also can find more information about the settlement at the website. Objections to the settlement are due by March 13, 2018.
The Court will hold a hearing in this case (Anderson v. Burger King Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-01204) on April 3, 2018 to determine whether: the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate; to approve Class Counsel’s request for $185,000 in fees and up to $10,000 in expenses; and a $500 service award to the Class Representative. You may hire your own lawyer to appear in court on your behalf, but it is not necessary. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP represents the plaintiff in this matter.