US District Judge Raag Singhal of the Southern District of Florida has dismissed a lawsuit accusing the Burger King fast-food chain of failing to disclose that the plant-based “Impossible Whopper” patty and regular beef patties are cooked on the same grill, using the same oils, resulting in vegetarian and vegan customers inadvertently consuming animal fats.

The class-action complaint, filed in November, alleged that although the fast-food chain advertises the Impossible Whopper as a meat-free, vegan alternative to its regular patties, it continues to cook the Impossible Whopper and beef patties on the same grills.

Plaintiff Phillip Williams claimed that “unbeknownst to Plaintiff and consumers, the Impossible Whopper is cooked on the same grills as its traditional meat-based products, creating a meat-free patty that is in fact covered in meat by-product” and that had many consumers “known that the Impossible meat used in Burger King’s Impossible Whopper was contaminated by meat by-product, they would not have purchased the Impossible Whopper.”

Williams further contended that Burger King’s alleged deception violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, which states “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are […] unlawful” and allows victims of unfair business practices to pursue compensation.

Williams’s case, however, turned back on Monday on the grounds that he and the other plaintiffs failed to show sufficient evidence of deception on Burger King’s part. The court found that Burger King advertised a patty comprised of solely plant-based products, but did not specify where that patty would be cooked. As such, Judge Singhal ruled that “Burger King promised a non-meat patty and delivered.”

Complaints against fast-food chains on the grounds of deceptively advertising healthy alternatives have succeeded in the past. In February, a U.S. District Judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs seeking compensation for misleading advertising from Chipotle that claimed the food lacked GMOs.

The court’s decision notes that the plaintiffs may amend and resubmit their complaint if they desire.