The customers claimed that when they presented the issue to the store’s employees, they “humiliated” them
Credit: Brandon Bell/Getty
NEED TO KNOW
- Two customers are suing Popeyes for over $1.5 million after allegedly finding a “condom-like” object in their chicken
- The plaintiffs claimed the incident caused physical and emotional distress and fear of potential contamination or health risks
- They alleged that Popeyes employees laughed at their complaint and failed to address food safety and sanitation concerns
Popeyes has been sued after customers allegedly bit into chicken containing a “condom-like foreign object.”
Justin Howard and Danielle McKinnon are suing the fried chicken chain for damages in excess of $1.5 million after allegedly eating chicken at Popeyes that contained the object, according to an Aug. 3 petition obtained by PEOPLE.
The petition alleged that on July 25, 2026, the plaintiffs bought chicken from a Popeyes in Houston.
“The meal appeared ordinary. It was not,” they wrote in the petition.
They alleged that Howard bit into a piece of chicken and “immediately discovered what appeared to be a condom-like foreign object embedded within the chicken.”
“The discovery instantly transformed what should have been an ordinary family meal into a deeply disturbing and frightening event,” the petition claimed, adding that Howard and McKinnon stopped eating and “became physically nauseated.”
“They were horrified by the possibility that they had already ingested contaminated food before discovering the object,” the petition alleged, adding that the customers were afraid of potential exposure to bacteria, bodily fluids, sexually transmitted diseases or other substances.
Howard and McKinnon claimed that they had no way of determining what the object was, how long it had been in the food, and whether “contamination had spread throughout the meal.”
Credit: Google Maps
The Texas residents alleged that the restaurant and its owner Restaurant Brands International engaged in “heinous conduct,” violating “fundamental safety rules” like not serving food with foreign objects, maintaining sanitary conditions, or treating complaints “as public health concerns.”
They claimed that Popeyes failed to uphold sanitation procedures, employee hygiene, supervision, quality assurance, food handling practices, among others, alleging that if the restaurant upheld “any” of these procedures, the food would not have reached them.
The plaintiffs claimed that the restaurant failed to do its duty of “protecting every customer.”
They claimed that the rule violations unnecessarily exposed customers to “preventable danger,” alleging that Popeyes failed to protect them from an issue they couldn’t see or “guard against themselves.”
The customers claimed that when they alerted the Popeyes employees to the issue after returning to the restaurant, the employees “laughed and continuously humiliated” the plaintiffs. They alleged that management “repeatedly” tried to replace the chicken rather than refund them or investigate the matter.
Per the petition, the customers were eventually refunded.
“This conscious indifference exemplifies that customer safety was secondary to minimizing the incident,” they claimed.
Howard and McKinnon alleged that they continue to feel physical and emotional ramifications and “mental anguish” from the event, claiming that their damages include healthcare expenses, pain, lost wages and more.
The two are suing the chain for damages in excess of $1.5 million.
The customers are accusing the chain of negligence for allegedly failing to adequately train its employees, enforce quality control measures, and maintain a safe food preparation environment.
The plaintiffs also accused Popeyes of gross negligence, alleging that the incident posed an “extreme degree of risk” and that the customers could not see the issue before eating the chicken.
The chain “knew, or should have known” that its alleged failed food safety procedures would create risk of injury, they claimed, alleging that the chain “acted with conscious indifference to the safety and welfare of customers,” leading to the alleged injuries.
The third count the plaintiffs accused the chain of was negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention of employees responsible for proper food preparation. They also alleged that the chicken was “unreasonably dangerous for ordinary consumption,” making it subject to strict products liability.
The petition claimed that Popeyes breached its implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for human consumption, alleging that Popeyes falsely implied it was selling “wholesome” food “fit for consumption.”
Finally, Howard and McKinnon alleged that the company violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) by representing the food as safe.
The plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial.
Popeyes and Restaurant Brands International did not immediately reply to PEOPLE’s request for comment.
Read the full article here