Burger King's 'taste on fire' put to the test

On 18 August 2025, the ARB dismissed a case against Burger King South Africa over claims that its advertising and packaging were misleading. The complainant argued that the phrase “Taste on Fire” and the use of generic wrapping featuring chilli variants suggested the product would be spicy.

The chicken burger ad.

Said the AR: "The Complainant submitted that this burger did not elicit a burning sensation, and that staff at the establishment confirmed that it did not contain any chili sauce and was not intended to cause a burning sensation. He stated that this contradicts the impression created by the advertising."

Burger King’s response

The brand clarified that:

• No terms like “spicy”, “hot” or “chili” were used in its advertising.
• “Taste on Fire” referred to flavour and flame-grilling, not heat.
• The packaging was multipurpose, used across chicken burger variants.

ARB decision

Advertising

Heineken vs SAB: The “demi-sec” dispute

Karabo Ledwaba  21 Aug 2025

The ARB considered Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice (misleading claims).

It found that:

• The product was clearly sold as the “Original Chicken Burger”.
• No language or visuals suggested spice or heat.
• Burger King’s menu explicitly labels its chilli-containing products.

The regulator ruled that the campaign was not misleading and dismissed the complaint. While Burger King is not an ARB member, the case shows how figurative marketing language can still invite scrutiny.