
Are Fast Food Chains Lying to You? Inside the Lawsuits Against Burger King, Arby's, Hardee's & More | Anthony Russo
Climate Change, Environment, Science and the LawShow Notes
Ever wonder why fast food ads look so different from the food you get from the drive thru? You're not the only one feeling deceived. In fact, some consumers may actually be eligible for reimbursement. In this episode of Cut to the Chase: Podcast, host Gregg Goldfarb is joined by attorney Anthony Russo to expose how fast food giants may be misleading consumers through deceptive advertising. From burgers that appear up to 35% larger in ads to questionable ingredient and labeling claims, Russo breaks down the class action lawsuits targeting companies like Burger King, Arby's, Hardee's, and even major candy brands. This conversation exposes the most popular food styling tactics, the legal "eye test," and consumer protection laws that are holding corporations accountable. Whether you're curious about class actions, false advertising, or your rights as a consumer, this episode will give you a behind-the-scenes look at some of the most high-profile lawsuits in fast food history. What to expect in this episode: Details on class action lawsuits against Burger King, Arby's, Hardee's, and others The "eye test" standard courts use to evaluate misleading advertising How food styling can become deceptive What class certification means and how consumers could be compensated Why most false advertising cases never make it to court How fast food lawsuits are reshaping consumer protection law How false advertising lawsuits could change the way food is sold in America Russo's work beyond fast food, including major mass tort cases like Suboxone litigation
📌 Want to stay updated on our latest podcasts? Subscribe to Cut to the Chase: Podcast Newsletter for monthly podcast releases and the latest legal news: https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/sl/KqDopgE
Subscribe, rate, review, and share this episode of the Cut to the Chase: Podcast!
Resources: Visit Anthony Russo's website: https://therussofirm.com Connect with Anthony on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anthony-j-russo-jr-9124656
This episode was produced and brought to you by Reignite Media.
More from Climate Change, Environment, Science and the Law
Will climate change force you to leave your home? Columbia Law professor Michael Gerrard explains the five futures facing American cities as extreme heat, flooding, wildfires and soaring insurance costs reshape where we can live. Your house might be worth less than you think, and harder to insure than you'd like. So do you fight to stay, or do you go? And who gets to decide? Michael has spent decades at the intersection of climate and the law. In his new law review article, Five Urban Futures for a Hot Planet, he lays out the options every American city now faces: sprout new cities, grow existing ones, stay and adapt, shrink, or leave. None of them are easy, and every one of them hits your savings, your neighborhood and your community. When Gregg asks whether America is ready for climate change to reshape the places we call home, Michael doesn't hesitate: "The short answer is hell no." Estimates of how many Americans will need to relocate by the end of the century range from 4 million to 100 million. At the low end, existing cities can absorb them. At the high end, we may need to build entirely new ones. They dig into why extreme heat is the deadliest climate threat, why storm sewers built "for your grandfather's storms" can't keep up, what Hoboken got right after Hurricane Sandy, and why New Orleans rebuilt in the same flood zones after Katrina. Michael also explains the trap many homeowners are already in: if your house is at risk, you can't sell it for enough to buy somewhere safer. As he puts it: "A lot of people are just stuck." If you own a home, live near the coast or a forest, or have ever heard someone say "the climate has always been changing," this is the episode to watch.
We send our soldiers to the front lines, but when they come home, does the healthcare system follow through? Jim Maguire and Joanne Frederick of Government Market Strategies explain why veterans and military families are struggling to get care, and how to fix it. Most people don't realize there are two completely separate systems. The Military Health System (TRICARE) covers about 9.5 million active duty members, families, and retirees. The Veterans Health Administration covers about 9 million veterans. Both are stretched thin. When military and VA facilities can't meet the demand, patients are sent out into the community, where they compete with everyone else for limited appointments. That's especially hard in rural areas, where many veterans live. On top of that, reimbursement rates are often lower than what private insurance and even Medicaid pay. Claims get delayed or never paid, so many doctors simply don't want to take these patients. Then there's the paperwork. Joanne estimates that roughly 15,000 pages of law, regulations, and manuals govern these contracts, and "no one really knows what they say." Using AI, she broke those documents down and found that they contradict each other. That project took two weeks, compared with a year and a half for a team of 20 doing it by hand. Jim and Joanne also share Patriot Health, their plan to modernize a TRICARE contract model that has barely changed since the 1990s. It would bring in more providers, more competition, and lower costs for taxpayers, while keeping the force ready for conflicts in the Middle East and beyond. If you're a veteran, a service member, or love someone who is, this episode is for you.
Is there still hope for climate change? Environmental journalist Fred Pearce, author of Despite It All, explains why climate change is solvable, from renewable energy and EVs to AI data centers and China's clean energy boom. Have you given up on the planet? Before you do, hear from someone who has spent 40 years reporting from more than 80 countries, and who has watched the world solve problems that once looked impossible. When Fred started out in the 1980s, the big environmental story was acid rain. Then came lead in petrol, the hole in the ozone layer, and warnings that a "population bomb" would starve billions. Today we barely talk about any of them, because we fixed them. So can we do the same with climate change? Gregg plays devil's advocate and throws the hardest questions at him. AI data centers are driving up energy demand. China is still building coal plants. Corporations and governments are quietly walking back their net-zero pledges. And climate change has become deeply politicized. Fred doesn't sugarcoat it: "You should be worried for sure." But he makes a compelling case for optimism. Solar and wind are now cheaper than coal. China has become the world's clean energy powerhouse. The conflict in Iran is pushing countries toward homegrown renewable power. And nature has an extraordinary ability to bounce back. As Fred puts it: "Hope drives ambition." If climate news leaves you feeling anxious or hopeless, this is the episode to watch.
Miami is raising its seawalls. Cities across the country are doing the same. The question now in front of the Supreme Court is whether the oil companies can be made to help pay for it. UC Berkeley law professor Daniel Farber joins Gregg to unpack Suncor Energy v. Boulder County. In this case, local governments are seeking compensation from oil companies for climate damage and for allegedly misleading the public about what their own scientists knew. The oil companies' defense is that climate change is a federal issue under the Clean Air Act, so state courts can't hear these cases. Here's the catch. The Trump EPA has repealed the endangerment finding, the legal foundation that lets the federal government regulate greenhouse gases. Pull that out, Farber explains, and "the whole house of cards falls down." The move meant to help Big Oil may end up weakening its best legal defense.
If you or a family member has a case involving Camp Lejeune, PFAS, NEC, or Depo-Provera, you've probably seen headlines about deadlines and settlements and wondered where your claim actually stands. In Part 2 of this conversation on Climate Change Environment Science & the Law with Gregg Goldfarb, host Gregg Goldfarb sits down again with Steven Smith, Vice President of Broughton Partners, to unpack four more mass tort campaigns that are all reaching critical moments. Smith explains why Camp Lejeune finally has real momentum, now that a federal judge has given plaintiffs' leadership until the end of October to reach a deal with the DOJ or risk being replaced. He also clarifies why no new Camp Lejeune claims can be filed, since the window Congress opened has now closed. On PFAS, he walks through how firefighting foam (AFFF) seeps into soil and drinking water, why 131,000 cases were filed when only 60,000 to 70,000 were expected, and how an upcoming Daubert hearing on two additional injuries could shift negotiating leverage before a possible global resolution. On NEC, Smith explains how two defendants agreed to pay just under $1 billion, why state court cases have succeeded where the federal MDL has not, and why the details of case values are still unknown. And on Depo-Provera, he breaks down the science linking the birth control shot to brain tumors called meningiomas, with more than a 5x increased risk, and shares his expectation of average case values between $150,000 and $200,000 for qualifying claims. Throughout, Smith and Goldfarb stress that deadlines, qualifications, and venue all matter, and that claimants should talk to their own firm about where their specific case stands.