Popeyes Hit With $1.5 Million Lawsuit After Customers Claim They Found ‘Condom’ in Chicken

Popeyes is facing a disturbing lawsuit after two Texas customers claimed they bit into fried chicken containing what appeared to be a “condom-like foreign object.”

Justin Howard and Danielle McKinnon are suing the fast-food chain for more than $1.5 million over the alleged incident, according to a petition filed Aug. 3.

The pair said they purchased chicken from a Popeyes restaurant in Houston on July 25, 2026.

“The meal appeared ordinary. It was not,” the lawsuit states.

According to the petition, Howard took a bite of a piece of chicken and suddenly discovered what appeared to be a condom-like object embedded inside it.

The lawsuit claims the discovery turned a routine meal into a horrifying experience.

Howard and McKinnon allegedly stopped eating immediately and became physically nauseated.

They said they were terrified that they may have already consumed contaminated food before noticing the object and feared possible exposure to bacteria, bodily fluids, sexually transmitted diseases or other harmful substances.

The lawsuit also claims they had no way of knowing exactly what the object was, how long it had been inside the food or whether contamination had spread to other parts of the meal.

Howard and McKinnon accused Popeyes and Restaurant Brands International of engaging in “heinous conduct” and violating basic food safety rules.

Among the alleged failures listed in the lawsuit were improper sanitation, poor employee hygiene, inadequate supervision, weak quality-control procedures and unsafe food-handling practices.

The plaintiffs claim that if proper procedures had been followed, the contaminated food never would have reached a customer.

They also accused the restaurant of failing in its basic responsibility to protect customers from dangers they could not reasonably detect themselves.

Popeyes, however, said it reviewed extensive surveillance footage and found no evidence supporting the customers’ allegation.

“We have looked at extensive internal video and saw no evidence to validate this claim,” the company said in a statement.

Still, Popeyes called the situation “unacceptable” and said the franchisee immediately refunded the customers and closed the restaurant early as a precaution so employees could undergo additional training.

Howard and McKinnon claim their experience inside the restaurant made the ordeal even worse.

According to the lawsuit, when they returned to complain about the chicken, employees allegedly laughed at them and repeatedly humiliated them.

The plaintiffs also claim management initially tried to replace the chicken rather than issue a refund or investigate what had happened.

They were eventually given their money back.

“This conscious indifference exemplifies that customer safety was secondary to minimizing the incident,” the petition alleges.

Howard and McKinnon say they have continued to suffer physical and emotional effects from the incident, including what they describe as “mental anguish.”

Their claimed damages include medical expenses, physical pain, lost wages and other costs.

The lawsuit accuses Popeyes of negligence for allegedly failing to properly train employees, enforce quality-control measures and maintain a safe food-preparation environment.

The couple is also accusing the chain of gross negligence, arguing that the alleged contamination created an extreme risk that customers would have been unable to detect before eating the food.

They claim Popeyes “knew, or should have known” that failures in food-safety procedures could expose customers to injury.

The lawsuit further accuses the company of negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention of employees responsible for preparing food.

Howard and McKinnon also argue that the chicken was “unreasonably dangerous for ordinary consumption,” making Popeyes potentially liable under strict product-liability laws.

The petition additionally alleges that Popeyes breached its implied warranty that the food it sold was safe and fit for human consumption.

Finally, the plaintiffs accuse the company of violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act by allegedly representing the food as safe to eat.

Howard and McKinnon are seeking damages exceeding $1.5 million as the lawsuit moves forward.