Burger King Restaurant Brands International Cookie Tracking Lawsuit, Were You Tracked After You Said No?

Restaurant Brands International — the parent company of Burger King, Tim Hortons, Popeyes, and Firehouse Subs — is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the Burger King website continued tracking users’ online activity even after those users explicitly rejected cookies through the site’s opt-out banner. The lawsuit was filed by California resident Daniel Pemberton, who says he visited burgerking.com in March 2023, clicked to opt out of data sharing, and was still tracked. The case is actively moving through federal court with several key claims still alive heading into 2026.

Restaurant Brands International Cookie Lawsuit — Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Lawsuit Filed	April 25, 2025
Defendant	Restaurant Brands International, Inc. and Restaurant Brands International U.S. Services LLC
Alleged Violation	California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 & 638.51; Invasion of Privacy; Intrusion Upon Seclusion; Common Law Fraud; Unjust Enrichment
Who Is Affected	U.S. residents who visited burgerking.com and opted out of cookie tracking
Current Court Stage	Active litigation — amended complaint filed January 29, 2026; CIPA claims revived
Court & Jurisdiction	U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:25-cv-03647
Lead Law Firm	Gutride Safier LLP
Presiding Judge	Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley
Next Hearing Date	TBD — pending court scheduling after amended complaint
Official Case Docket	CourtListener.com — Case 3:25-cv-03647
Last Updated	May 12, 2026

What Is the Restaurant Brands International Cookie Lawsuit About? Pemberton v. Restaurant Brands International, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-03647

Pemberton alleged that he visited the Burger King website and clicked the opt-out option on the cookie consent banner — the pop-up that asks users whether they agree to have their data tracked and shared. After he opted out, his browsing activity was still transmitted to third-party companies including Google, Meta, and Microsoft.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the wiretapping and pen register provisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) — a state privacy statute that gives California residents the right to control how companies intercept or record their electronic communications. Simply put, CIPA treats unauthorized interception of your online activity the same way it treats illegal wiretapping of a phone call. If you said no and they tracked you anyway, that is the core of this consumer rights lawsuit.

In an amended complaint filed in January 2026, Pemberton argued that the third-party cookies and the software used to place them constitute a “machine, instrument, or contrivance” under CIPA, and that Burger King’s deliberate scheme to facilitate the interceptions falls within the statute’s broad coverage. This is one of the most closely watched data privacy attorney battlegrounds in California right now, and its outcome could affect how companies across the country design their cookie banners.

For broader context on how courts handle digital tracking claims, see our article on the Hyundai Palisade Airbag Lawsuit And Recall 2026 — a case that similarly shows how consumer rights claims survive early dismissal motions and reach trial.

Are You Part of the Restaurant Brands International Class Action Lawsuit?

Here is how to know if this lawsuit includes you.

You may be part of this class if:

• You visited burgerking.com (the Burger King website) at any time
• You were presented with a cookie consent banner and selected the opt-out option
• You are a California resident or your browsing session was connected to California jurisdiction
• Your browsing data was transmitted to third-party platforms like Google, Meta, or Microsoft after you opted out

You are likely NOT included if:

• You accepted cookies and consented to data sharing on the Burger King website
• You visited other Restaurant Brands websites (Tim Hortons, Popeyes, Firehouse Subs) — this case specifically names burgerking.com
• You are not a California resident and your claims do not fall under CIPA

If you are asking yourself “am I part of the Burger King class action lawsuit?” — the short answer is: if you opted out and were still tracked in California, you likely are. No action is required from you right now to preserve your place in the class.

Related article: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, What It Is and Why It Keeps Making Headlines

What Are Restaurant Brands International Plaintiffs Seeking in This Lawsuit?

This is not a settled case. No claim form exists, and no payment is available yet. Here is what the plaintiffs have asked the court to award.

The surviving claims include invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages for each class member whose data was intercepted without valid consent — as well as injunctive relief, meaning a court order requiring Restaurant Brands to fix its cookie banner so it actually works.

The amended complaint also revives the CIPA wiretapping and pen register claims, arguing that third parties not only had the capability to use the intercepted data for their own purposes, but actually did so. Under CIPA’s statutory damages provision, each individual violation can carry penalties of $5,000 per incident — which, across a class of potentially thousands of California users, could add up to substantial compensation for damages.

No specific total damages figure has been certified by the court. If a legal settlement payout is eventually reached, class members will receive notice with instructions at that time.

What Should You Do If You Were Tracked on the Burger King Website?

Right now, most class members do not need to take any formal action. Here is what you should do:

1. Save any evidence — if you have screenshots, browser history, or emails from burgerking.com visits where you opted out of cookies, preserve them. This documentation matters if you later need to verify your membership in the class.
2. Monitor the official case docket at CourtListener.com for scheduling updates and court orders. When a settlement is reached, notices will be sent to class members.
3. Do not wait for a letter to act — if you believe you experienced unauthorized tracking and want to pursue an individual claim rather than wait for the class resolution, consult a class action lawsuit attorney for a free legal consultation about your options.
4. File a complaint with the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) at cppa.ca.gov if you believe your privacy rights were violated — this creates an official record separate from this lawsuit.

Restaurant Brands International Class Action Lawsuit Timeline

Milestone	Date
Lawsuit Filed	April 25, 2025
Motion to Compel Arbitration Denied	September 8, 2025
Motion to Dismiss Ruling — CIPA Claims Dismissed, Other Claims Survive	November 24, 2025
Deadline to File Amended Complaint	January 29, 2026
Amended Complaint Filed (CIPA Claims Revived)	January 30, 2026
Class Certification Motion	TBD — not yet filed
Next Scheduled Hearing	TBD — pending court scheduling
Expected Settlement Timeline	TBD — case in early litigation stage

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a class action lawsuit against Burger King for cookie tracking? 

Yes. The case is Pemberton v. Restaurant Brands International Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03647, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. It alleges that Burger King’s website tracked users even after they opted out of cookies.

Do I need to do anything right now to be included in the Burger King class action?

 No. Most class members are automatically included if they meet the eligibility criteria. You do not need to file anything at this stage. Monitor the court docket for updates and wait for official notice if a settlement is reached.

When will a settlement be reached in the Restaurant Brands International case?

 TBD — the case is in early active litigation after an amended complaint was filed in January 2026. Class certification has not yet been sought. Settlement negotiations, if any, are not yet publicly reported.

Can I file my own lawsuit against Restaurant Brands International instead of joining the class?

 Yes, but you must opt out of the class action before any deadline the court sets. If you experienced significant individual harm from the unauthorized tracking, consult a consumer rights lawyer about whether an individual claim makes more sense for your situation.

How will I know if the Burger King lawsuit settles?

 If the case settles, the court will require the administrator to notify class members by mail or email. You can also monitor the official docket at CourtListener.com for any settlement filing.

Why were the CIPA claims initially dismissed — and are they back in the case? 

Judge Corley initially ruled that Pemberton’s CIPA claims were time-barred because he had not shown he was entitled to equitable tolling. The January 2026 amended complaint directly addressed those gaps, arguing that the third-party cookies constitute a “machine, instrument, or contrivance” under CIPA and that the interceptions fell under the statute’s broad catch-all category. The court has not yet ruled on the amended CIPA claims.

What does Restaurant Brands International say about the tracking allegations?

The company argued that if the opt-out function did not work, any reasonable person would conclude it was a technical issue — particularly given that the website went to significant lengths to disclose its practices and create the cookie banner in the first place. The court rejected that argument as insufficient to dismiss the case at this stage.

Sources & References

• CourtListener — Pemberton v. Restaurant Brands International, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-03647
• PacerMonitor — Case Docket 4:25-cv-03647

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against official court records from CourtListener and PacerMonitor on May 12, 2026. Last Updated: May 12, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. For advice about your particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.