100% beef is the topic of an ongoing lawsuit[0].

0 https://lawsips.com/mcdonalds-100-beef-lawsuit/

I was surprised to see a real reference because I thought the 100% beef thing was a 100% myth.

But that article confirms in several places that independent testing finds no fillers at all, and what is left is just "Plaintiffs allege that undisclosed processing steps or agents applied during production or cooking could alter the accuracy of the “100%” claim." It's not a very convincing argument and it would be quite hard for McDonalds to cover up a secret process to add another ingredient.

> Additionally, the visual gap between advertised burgers and actual burgers raises separate false advertising issues

Meanwhile, the very clear and obvious false advertising they actually perform is getting hardly any attention. Here's to hoping they won't be able to continue advertising products that are different from what they sell.

100% beef is a trademark.

"100% beef" is a factual claim, and not subject to Trademarks; McDonalds Trademarked "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF" in 1982.

https://www.trademarkia.com/100-pure-all-american-beef-73352...

Even that doesn't mean that the patty is JUST beef. Thanks to legalese, the only thing a claim like that would guarantee is that the beef portion of the hamburger patty is "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF".

It could be 99% filler and not be a lie.

>"It could be 99% filler and not be a lie."

There is no evidence that McDonalds has included any filler in their burgers at all (at least in recent history). See the link in the cousin-comment for more information on what has been claimed and what has been proven (so far): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49247943

There is no evidence that McDonalds "beef" is actually any good. Nothing they sell should be classified as food.

> the beef portion of the hamburger patty is "100% PURE ALL-AMERICAN BEEF"

But the claim isn't about "the beef portion". If what you say is true it would give a competitor the chance to say "McD's burgers are 100% unhealthy fat" because the unhealthy fat portion is 100% unhealthy fat.

> It could be 99% filler and not be a lie.

I doubt it. Not sure about the US but in Europe there are laws that tell you how much or how little of something you can have before you advertise that thing. For example you can't say "now with less sugar" if you reduced the quantity of sugar by 0.001g. And you can't call it "olive oil" if it has 2% olive oil.

> And you can't call it "olive oil" if it has 2% olive oil.

Which is still way too lax. It should only be called olive oil when it's 100% olive oil. You can pick some other name like "olive oil based" or "unholy mixture of the cheapest gutter oils we could find" which clearly indicates that what you are selling is in fact a combination of oils.

I forgot to mention, my bad, I used some random numbers. The EU "nutrition claims" numbers are here [1]. If you want to claim "less salt" then it must contain at least 25% less. For most other ingredients it's 30%, so you can't advertise "less X" forever because you reduce 1 nanogram at at time.

For olive oil you can find the details here [2]. As above, there's no such thing as "the olive oil part was olive oil". The label is for the product.

The US probably has something similar, even if watered down.

[1] https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/labelling-and-nutritio...

[2] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/crops/olive-oil_en

Only after attempts to call one of their suppliers or processors "100% Beef" failed.

I recall a similar claim regarding pop music compilation CDs advertised as being performed by "The Original Cast", which was really a group by that name playing covers of popular songs.

Or another being "Made in USA", where Usa was a city in Korea.

I feel like there is a probably apocryphal story of a town in Japan being called Scotland so they can sell whisky as Scotch.

Which as a highlander I don’t see the need for - Japanese whiskey is quite able to stand in its own and hold its own.

Except apparently:

  any bottle labeled or marketed as "Scotch" in Japan must strictly comply with the UK's Scotch Whisky Regulations. Because Scotch Whisky (スコッチ・ウィスキー) is legally recognized and registered in Japan as the legal equivalent of a protected denomination of origin.

"Genuine diamonds" sold fake diamonds after trademarking the name, I thibk. However a decade later I read about them losibg a lawsuit.

This tricks don't work any more.

the tricks never worked legally speaking. misleading labels stay misleading even if you have a trademark on that name and use it for years.

the problem is cases like this rarely go to court, and plaintiffs might run into a judge who literally doesnt believe consumer fraud is a thing if theres at least one possible non fraud interpretation no matter how unlikely it is.

"Original Cast" is a record label that sells records of obscure musical theater shows.

Usa is a city in Japan, and according to the internet the "Made in USA" thing is a joke or myth.

As far as I can tell both of your speculative claims don't reflect any real thing that happened.

I don't suggest they are real. Only that they are similarly as dubious as the 100% beef claim.