Umm the actual court order the article refers to is super generous to the plaintiffs lol. Whoever's representing them made such basic mistakes that I'm not even sure how they passed the bar exam:
The Plaintiffs' first cause of action lists--in a single paragraph that spans four pages--fifty
different state (and DC) consumer-protection statutes.
(This is a no-no in every federal court in every state.)
In either event, the Plaintiffs concede that they've failed to meet the requirements of Mississippi and Ohio law--even as they ask us not to dismiss those claims.
(Wtf? lol)
we agree with Burger King that a reasonable person wouldn't have interpreted Burger King's TV and online ads as binding offers.
(This is well-settled law and taught to most first-year law students.)