According to Massachusetts Law, The KFC Double Down Is Technically Not A Sandwich

Today, all of our feelings towards the KFC Double Down were justified by the progressive, far-seeing legal statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:


This legal precedent came from a ruling handed down by the Worcester Superior Court in 2006, in a civil case between a shopping center and a Panera Bread. Basically, the Panera Bread franchise thought that their contract with the mall gave them the exclusive right to sell sandwiches in that commercial space, but sued upon learning that the mall would soon lease space to a Qdoba, claiming that burritos and tacos fell under the umbrella definition of “sandwich”. (The court tossed out the case.)

Given that a Double Down contains no bread whatsoever, it also does not fall under the umbrella definition of “sandwich,” and is, therefore, an illegitimate sandwich pretender. (Sadly, Massachusetts law has yet to rule on whether the Double Down is disgusting and should die. Get on it, Commonwealth!)

[h/t Gawker]

The Colonel Vs. Hitler: KFC Sues Thai Chicken Restaurant For Taking Its Logo And Doing This
Last Call: KFC Announces Deep-Fried Soup, Will Soon Attempt to Fry Air, Dreams
Everything You Need To Know About Yesterday’s Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day

Have a tip we should know?

  1. Mediaite
  2. The Mary Sue
  3. RunwayRiot
  4. LawNewz
  5. Gossip Cop