A California federal judge recently ruled that Burger King’s parent company must face a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it illegally tracked website visitors, even after they opted out of such tracking. The ruling means that the case will move forward in court rather than being resolved through private arbitration.
This decision has drawn attention not just because it involves one of the world’s largest fast-food chains, but also because it highlights growing concerns around digital privacy, consumer consent, and the use of third-party cookies on company websites.
Background of the Case
The class action lawsuit was filed against Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI) and its subsidiary, Restaurant Brands International U.S. Services LLC, the companies behind Burger King.
- Plaintiff: Daniel Pemberton
- Claims: Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), invasion of privacy, and fraud
- Core Allegation: Burger King placed third-party cookies on users’ devices and tracked visitors’ online activity, even if they had opted out of the sale or sharing of their personal data.
Pemberton alleged that the tracking was done without his consent and in direct violation of privacy protections that should have been honored when visitors opted out.
Judge’s Ruling on Arbitration
-
On September 5, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied Burger King’s motion. Therefore, the case will proceed in court instead of arbitration.
Burger King argued that its terms required arbitration. However, Judge Corley rejected this claim. She found no clear evidence that Pemberton saw those terms. In addition, she noted that he never agreed to them.
The court also reviewed the website design. It found that users could not easily locate the terms. Therefore, the judge ruled that the agreement was not enforceable.
Why the Website Terms Were Inadequate
Judge Corley highlighted several design flaws. First, the homepage did not display the terms. Instead, users had to open a small menu link. Then, they had to scroll through multiple pages.
Moreover, Pemberton never interacted with Burger King online services. He did not use the app or rewards program. Therefore, he had no exposure to the terms.
As a result, the court found that the notice was not clear. This made the arbitration clause invalid.
The Bigger Issue: Online Tracking Without Consent
The case also raises serious privacy concerns. Pemberton claims that Burger King tracked users without consent.
Specifically, the company used third-party cookies to collect data. In addition, it continued tracking users who opted out. Therefore, the case questions how companies handle user data.
These issues reflect wider concerns about digital privacy. Consumers now expect clear consent and transparency.
Comparison to Other Cases
Burger King is not alone in facing such claims. Recently, Adobe faced a similar lawsuit. That case also involved tracking without proper notice.
Therefore, these lawsuits show a growing trend. Companies must now follow stricter privacy standards.
What This Means for Consumers
This case could create important changes. First, it may hold Burger King accountable. In addition, it could set new legal standards.
It may also strengthen privacy protections. Therefore, companies may need to improve their policies.
For consumers, this case offers key lessons. They should review privacy settings carefully. In addition, they should stay aware of data usage.
Representation and Case Details
Case Name: Pemberton v. Restaurant Brands International Inc., et al.
Case Number: 3:25-cv-03647
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Conclusion
At Ted Law Firm, The Burger King class action lawsuit is more than a dispute over website terms; it’s a test case for how far companies can go in tracking online behavior without explicit consumer consent. Judge Corley’s refusal to enforce arbitration means the case will play out publicly in court, drawing attention to the balance between corporate data practices and consumer privacy rights.We serve families across Aiken, Anderson, Charleston, Columbia, Greenville, Myrtle Beach, North Augusta and Orangeburg.
As digital privacy concerns continue to grow, this lawsuit could have ripple effects across industries, influencing how companies present their terms of service and how they honor consumers’ opt-out requests. Contact us today for a free consultation
