If a restaurant puts the wrong style fries in the menu image, is that false advertising?

I see this all the time (mainly mom and pops) but basically the menu has these beautiful steak or crinkle cut fries, then you order them and they’re normal fries.

Always made me curious, is that false advertising or anything especially if menu just calls them “fries” and nothing specific.

Mom-and-pop places are using stock photos. I don’t know if it’s a technical violation, but anyone who would pursue such an accusation needs to get a hobby.

We also just run out of stuff. Next time ask the cashier if they have the crinkle/steak fries in stock. If not, don’t order them. *

My WAG is in order for that case to go anywhere, you’d have to at least prove they intentionally baited you into the store with their crinkle cut fries and then switched them to the “more expensive” regular ones.

*and don’t be a jerk about it. I get customers pulling this crap from time to time. My cashier in no way, shape or form deserves the wrath of a shitty customer because I ran out of something.

IANAL but I think it would come down to whether there is an intent to deceive. A new french fry supplier or update of equipment causing a change in appearance is, IMO, understandable and reasonable. Subbing chips for fries ‘like in the picture’ is probably dishonest and wrong.

False advertising is an actionable civil claim under 15 U.S. Code § 1125. To bring a claim for false advertising, the plaintiff must show:

  • The defendant made false or misleading statements as to their own products (or another’s);
  • Actual deception occurred, or at least a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience;
  • The deception is material in that it is likely to influence purchasing decisions;
  • The advertised goods travel in interstate commerce; and
  • There was a likelihood of injury to the plaintiff.

If I expected a pizza to be like the one depicted on the menu, it would have no sauce and only one slice cut.

I prefer when the photos are actually photos of the food they serve. (Or there aren’t photos.) But something like the wrong style of fries? I’d guess either a stock photo or they have a new supplier/chef.

I was annoyed last night that the samosas and the “mild” dal makhni were spicier and more peppery than they used to be. I didn’t order from photos, and they actually look pretty similar. But it was the same kind of disappointment as in the OP. I assume a new chef. But, eh, stuff happens. My husband and daughter still liked the food, and we’ll probably keep buying from the place.

I suggest you get advice from this guy . He sounds like he knows what he’s talking about.

Heck, if applied strictly, most North American restuarants that advertise fish and chips are doing false advertising. French fries are not chips.

Serious question: in what way are they different?

I’ve made a good living over the years suing companies and restaurants whose food never looks remotely as good as what’s pictured on product packages and menus.

I could retire based on a crinkle fry deception.

French fries are frenched - sliced very long and narrow.

Chips are much larger: “chips” off the potato. That changes the final result . They’re often soaked in water in advance to improve the cooking. Properly done, they’re much better cooked on the inside.

Ah, thanks. Many recipes give the impression that they’re just fries. I kind of had the impression that the real British product might have thicker cut fries. A local supermarket that offers prepackaged fresh fish & chips actually does use much thicker potato cuts. I dislike that style, though, because they never crisp up enough in the oven. “Properly prepared” I guess is key here.

I now make fish & chips using President’s Choice frozen “Haddock and Hops”, which is beer-battered haddock and turns out to be the way the Brits make the batter – with beer. It comes out nice and crispy and I’ve got the timing down to a science so that fish and fries are ready at the same time. :slight_smile:

Laws differ from place to place. A certain amount of cosmetic wrangling is common and legal when showing pictures of items in commercials which generally look more appetizing than the real thing. It’s even a job with recognized tricks of the trade, like making soup look chunkier by adding marbles.

It is possible a smaller place has several types of item, or a choice, or the picture is out of date. If you get basically the same thing, I doubt there is any case. What harm did you actually suffer? But perhaps Lionel Hutz puts it best. “Homer, I don’t often use the word hero. But you. Are the greatest hero. In American history.”

An interactive guide to fast-food advertising … :slight_smile:

Another one:

Most food advertising images are fake - mainly digital renders now, but used to be the tizzying up in front of the camera - whipped cream instead of mashed potato, cardboard spacers to separate and lift burger ingredients, glycerine drops instead of water condensation on coke cans etc. Could you sue Maccas for not including cardboard inserts or failing to deliver a cold photo-shopped burger?

Ever wonder why your Big Mac or Quarter Pounder BLT starts falling apart, but that never happens in commercials? Live-action commercials involve fakery, too. For McDonald’s ads in particular (but probably true for many others) the unfortunate actors have to pretend they’re enjoying burgers that are actually stone-cold, because they hold together better that way.

But how much second-guessing of the menu is the customer supposed to do? I certainly wouldn’t think about suing or anything ridiculous like that, but if what you serve isn’t matching the description, maybe you should mention that as the person orders?

I will note that “chives” in any chain restaurant nearly always means “green onions,” even though these are completely different vegetables that aren’t interchangeable. I would say deceptive advertising rather than false advertising, because I suspect the people producing the menus and the people purchasing the ingredients and producing the food are not the same.

While I don’t disagree, I suspect that a lot of people (including a lot of the small restaurants we’re talking about here) feel that, more or less, “French fries are French fries,” and don’t really care a whole lot about crinkle vs. straight/flat. (But, certainly, some people, including perhaps the OP, do care).

OTOH, if the menu touts “fresh-cut fries” (as Five Guys does), and the fries are actually frozen, then there’s a bit more of a disconnect there, which I would be more likely to expect the server/cashier to note.

But as Basil Fawlty said to the difficult customer demanding fresh peas in his omelette instead of frozen, “well, they were fresh when they were frozen!” :wink: