MrBeast Burger sparks outrage over raw meat & complaints

MrBeast burger orders have surfaced again in recent weeks, with new photos of raw or undercooked meat posted across social platforms. The complaints echo earlier waves that began in 2021 and never fully disappeared. Delivery-app users in dozens of states keep running into the same issues, prompting renewed scrutiny of how a high-profile virtual brand ended up in this position.

Launch and rapid expansion

MrBeast burger debuted in November 2020 as a delivery-only concept using existing restaurant kitchens. The partnership with Virtual Dining Concepts allowed the brand to appear on major apps in more than 1,700 locations within two years. The model relied on third-party staff and standard kitchen equipment rather than dedicated sites.

By 2023 the brand had reached hundreds of U.S. markets, yet internal audits already showed order accuracy falling short of targets. Mystery shoppers documented a 5 percent wrong-order rate, twice the level MrBeast’s team considered acceptable. Review aggregates on Yelp and Trustpilot placed more than half of participating kitchens below two stars.

The speed of rollout left little room for uniform training or equipment checks. Complaints about raw beef and chicken arrived within weeks of the first deliveries, and photos circulated on Reddit and Twitter long before any lawsuit was filed.

Recurring quality failures

Customer reports consistently cite pink centers in beef patties and visibly raw chicken strips. Several lawsuits reference photographs taken immediately after delivery, showing the meat still cool to the touch. One Reddit post quoted in court papers described a first bite that revealed “mostly just raw meat.”

MrBeast publicly acknowledged the problem in 2023, stating that he could not guarantee quality because he lacked operational control. Private texts later released in discovery showed repeated internal complaints about undercooked food that went unaddressed by Virtual Dining Concepts.

Even after publicized refund offers and menu tweaks, the same pattern reappeared in 2025 and 2026. New viral images triggered another round of media coverage and prompted some locations to be removed from apps entirely.

Partnership breakdown

Beast Investments sued Virtual Dining Concepts in July 2023, alleging breach of contract and damage to brand reputation. The filing claimed the operator prioritized rapid expansion over consistent food safety. Court documents included thousands of customer photos and reviews collected over two years.

Virtual Dining Concepts countersued for roughly $100 million, arguing that MrBeast interfered with operations and disparaged the brand after attempting to renegotiate terms. The company maintained that the majority of orders met standards and that typical ghost-kitchen variables were at fault.

Partial dismissals have narrowed some claims, yet the core dispute remains active in New York Supreme Court with no trial date set. Judge Jennifer Schecter described the review evidence as compelling but questioned the extent of broader harm to the MrBeast name.

Partner exits and contraction

Red Robin and several other restaurant groups quietly ended their participation by late 2025. The pullback reduced the U.S. footprint to approximately 245 locations across 39 states. One physical site at American Dream Mall in New Jersey remains open on limited hours.

App visibility has also declined, with some regional markets showing zero active kitchens. Delivery data indicate that order volume dropped sharply after each new wave of raw-meat photos surfaced online.

MrBeast burger’s remaining partners now operate under stricter audit requirements, though the brand has not returned to its earlier scale. Industry observers note that similar virtual concepts have faced comparable retrenchment once quality issues become public.

Social media amplification

Each new complaint photo spreads quickly on TikTok and X, often accompanied by side-by-side comparisons to MrBeast’s polished YouTube thumbnails. Hashtags referencing raw meat briefly trend before the cycle repeats with the next viral post.

Comment sections fill with users swapping stories of missing items, cold fries, and incorrect substitutions. The volume of negative posts has outpaced any coordinated brand response, keeping the issue visible even when traditional media coverage wanes.

MrBeast’s own social accounts have largely stopped promoting the burger line, shifting focus to other ventures. The silence has not slowed user-generated content, which continues to surface older complaints alongside fresh ones.

Legal filings and evidence

Court records contain internal messages in which MrBeast expressed frustration over repeated quality failures. One 2023 text read, “It hurts my soul to see orders messed up,” while another stated he could not care less about the venture because he had no control.

Virtual Dining Concepts countered that the complaints represented a small fraction of total volume and that ghost kitchens routinely encounter variable results. The company argued that MrBeast’s public statements damaged its ability to attract new partners.

Discovery has produced extensive photo libraries and aggregated review data. Both sides continue to file motions, and the case remains one of the most closely watched celebrity-brand disputes in the virtual-restaurant sector.

Consumer impact and refunds

Many customers report requesting refunds through delivery apps rather than pursuing formal complaints. Those who contacted MrBeast’s team directly often received gift cards or vouchers, though some say subsequent orders repeated the same problems.

The pattern has led to widespread avoidance of the brand on delivery platforms. Search interest for MrBeast burger now surfaces complaint threads more prominently than menu information or promotional posts.

Food-safety advocates have used the case to highlight gaps in oversight for virtual restaurants that operate without dedicated kitchens or on-site management.

Industry context

Ghost-kitchen models expanded quickly during the pandemic but faced quality-control challenges once volume increased. MrBeast burger’s experience mirrors other celebrity-backed concepts that scaled faster than operational standards could support.

Analysts point to the absence of direct supervision as the central risk. When branding power rests with one party and day-to-day execution with another, accountability becomes difficult to enforce across hundreds of locations.

Recent partner exits suggest that future virtual ventures may adopt tighter quality thresholds or limit geographic reach until consistent results can be demonstrated.

Regulatory attention

Health-department inspections of shared kitchens have increased in several states following high-profile complaints. Some jurisdictions now require additional temperature logs for virtual brands operating out of third-party facilities.

While no widespread regulatory action has targeted MrBeast burger specifically, the publicity has prompted operators to review their own procedures. Delivery apps have also adjusted algorithms to surface lower-rated kitchens less frequently.

These incremental changes have not resolved the underlying dispute between MrBeast and Virtual Dining Concepts, which continues to shape how both parties approach any future food-related projects.

Current status and outlook

MrBeast burger remains available in a reduced number of markets, yet the brand’s reputation continues to suffer from resurfaced complaints. The lawsuit’s outcome will determine whether the partnership dissolves or restructures under new terms.

For consumers, the immediate takeaway is caution when ordering from any virtual restaurant that lacks on-site oversight. The case illustrates how quickly quality issues can erode trust once photographs circulate beyond the initial delivery window.