A routine family meal at Popeyes allegedly turned into a deeply disturbing experience when a customer bit into chicken and discovered what appeared to be a “condom-like foreign object” embedded inside.

Justin Howard and Danielle McKinnon are suing the fried chicken chain for damages in excess of $1.5 million after allegedly eating chicken containing the object, according to an Aug. 3 petition obtained by PEOPLE. The petition alleges 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.

According to the lawsuit, Howard bit into a piece of chicken and “immediately discovered what appeared to be a condom-like foreign object embedded within the chicken.” The complaint claims the discovery instantly turned what should have been an ordinary family meal into a frightening and disturbing situation.

Howard and McKinnon allegedly stopped eating and “became physically nauseated.” They also claimed they were horrified by the possibility that they may have already ingested contaminated food before noticing the object.

The petition alleges that the customers feared potential exposure to bacteria, bodily fluids, sexually transmitted diseases or other substances. Howard and McKinnon claimed they had no way of determining what the object was, how long it had been inside the food, or whether “contamination had spread throughout the meal.”

Now, the allegations have placed an unsettling question at the center of the lawsuit: What exactly was the object, and how did it allegedly end up inside the chicken?

What happened inside a Texas Popeyes restaurant left two customers claiming they were exposed to a danger they could not see or protect themselves against—and what allegedly happened after they reported it only added to their concerns.

The Texas residents alleged that the restaurant and its owner, Restaurant Brands International, engaged in “heinous conduct” by violating “fundamental safety rules,” including rules against serving food containing foreign objects, maintaining sanitary conditions, and treating complaints “as public health concerns.”

According to the plaintiffs, Popeyes failed to follow sanitation procedures, employee hygiene standards, supervision, quality assurance and food-handling practices. They alleged that if “any” of those procedures had been properly followed, the food would not have reached them.

The plaintiffs claimed the restaurant had a duty of “protecting every customer” and alleged that the violations unnecessarily exposed customers to “preventable danger”—including an issue they could not see or “guard against themselves.”

Popeyes disputed the claim. In a statement to PEOPLE by email, the company said, “We have looked at extensive internal video and saw no evidence to validate this claim.” The company added, “Regardless, it is unacceptable,” saying the Franchisee immediately refunded the guest and, “out of an abundance of caution,” closed the restaurant early for re-training.

But the customers alleged that the situation became even more troubling when they returned to the restaurant to alert employees. According to their claims, employees “laughed and continuously humiliated” them, while management “repeatedly” attempted to replace the chicken instead of issuing a refund or investigating 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 experience physical and emotional ramifications and “mental anguish” from the event. They claimed their damages include healthcare expenses, pain, lost wages and more—leaving the allegations to be weighed against Popeyes’ denial that its internal video supported the customers’ account.

Two Texas customers are seeking more than $1.5 million from Popeyes after accusing the chain of serving chicken they say was “unreasonably dangerous for ordinary consumption”—and their lawsuit now lays out a series of serious allegations against the company.

The customers are suing the chain for damages in excess of $1.5 million, accusing Popeyes of negligence for allegedly failing to adequately train employees, enforce quality control measures and maintain a safe food preparation environment.

The plaintiffs also accused Popeyes of gross negligence, alleging that the incident created an “extreme degree of risk” and that they could not see the alleged issue before eating the chicken.

According to the lawsuit, the chain “knew, or should have known” that its alleged failures in food safety procedures could create a risk of injury. The plaintiffs further alleged that Popeyes “acted with conscious indifference to the safety and welfare of customers,” leading to the alleged injuries.

The lawsuit also accuses the chain of negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention of employees responsible for proper food preparation. The plaintiffs alleged that the chicken was “unreasonably dangerous for ordinary consumption,” making it subject to strict products liability.

The petition further claims that Popeyes breached its implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for human consumption by allegedly implying that 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.

With more than $1.5 million in damages at stake, the allegations now put Popeyes’ food safety practices and the events surrounding the customers’ claims under intense scrutiny.

faq’s

What are the Texas customers alleging they found in their Popeyes chicken?

The customers allege they found a “condom-like foreign object” in the chicken, which they claim they could not see before eating it.

How much are the Texas customers seeking from Popeyes?

The two customers are suing Popeyes for damages in excess of $1.5 million.

Why are the customers accusing Popeyes of negligence?

The plaintiffs allege that Popeyes failed to adequately train employees, enforce quality-control measures and maintain a safe food-preparation environment.

What does the lawsuit claim about food safety procedures?

The plaintiffs allege that if Popeyes had followed “any” of its sanitation, hygiene, supervision, quality-assurance and food-handling procedures, the alleged foreign object would not have reached them.

What damages do Howard and McKinnon say they suffered?

They allege physical and emotional ramifications and “mental anguish,” with claimed damages including healthcare expenses, pain, lost wages and more.