MrBeast vs Virtual Dining Concepts: Legal Battle Highlights the Need for Preserving Text Messages in Influencer Partnerships

Background: The MrBeast Burger Partnership Gone Wrong

Jimmy Donaldson, better known as MrBeast, partnered with Florida-based Virtual Dining Concepts (VDC) in 2020 to launch MrBeast Burger, a delivery-only fast-food brand. The concept relied on ghost kitchens – existing restaurants cooking MrBeast-branded menu items for delivery – allowing rapid nationwide expansion without physical storefronts. The venture grew explosively, reportedly reaching over 1,500 locations across 45 states (plus 200 international sites) at its peak. However, as the brand scaled up, cracks began to show. Customers increasingly shared horror stories online of botched orders – burgers arriving cold, wrong, or even “raw” in some cases. By 2022 and 2023, MrBeast’s fanbase and customers were flooding social media with complaints of “inedible” food and missing items, blemishing the influencer’s reputation. What began as an innovative celebrity-business collaboration soon devolved into a public feud, ultimately erupting into dueling lawsuits by mid-2023.

MrBeast’s Lawsuit: Low-Quality Food and Brand Damage

In July 2023, MrBeast (through his company Beast Investments) sued Virtual Dining Concepts to terminate their agreement and shut down the MrBeast Burger venture. His lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, painted a bleak picture of the customer experience. It alleged that VDC’s poor management led to “disgusting,” “revolting,” and “inedible” burgers being served to fans. Orders were often delivered extremely late or with items missing, directly contradicting the quality standards MrBeast expected. MrBeast claimed these failures caused “irreparable harm to the MrBeast brand and MrBeast’s reputation” – a serious allegation for a creator whose name is his business. Notably, the suit also stated that despite the venture’s success on paper, he hadn’t received a single dollar in royalties or profit from the partnership.

MrBeast’s legal filing argued that VDC was more focused on rapid expansion and signing other celebrities than on maintaining quality control for his brand’s offerings. It pointed out that VDC prioritized “rapidly expanding the business as a way to pitch the virtual restaurant model to other celebrities for its own benefit” instead of ensuring a good customer experience. Donaldson lamented that he had minimal control over the operations despite his name being on the product. In fact, he publicly admitted on Twitter, “I can’t guarantee the quality of the order. When working with other restaurants it’s impossible to control it sadly.” Contractually, he could not change more than 10% of the menu twice a year, leaving him handcuffed when it came to improving or fixing the offerings. With his brand’s image at stake and no contractual way to unilaterally pull the plug, the YouTube star sought a declaratory judgment to end the deal immediately. In essence, MrBeast’s position was that VDC’s negligence and hunger for growth tarnished his brand, and he had the right to cut ties to stop further damage.

Virtual Dining Concepts’ Countersuit: Breach of Contract and Defamation

VDC fired back within weeks. In August 2023, Virtual Dining Concepts countersued MrBeast for $100 million in New York state court. The ghost kitchen company vigorously denied mismanaging the brand and instead blamed MrBeast for the partnership’s breakdown. According to VDC, MrBeast breached his contractual obligations – notably by failing to adequately promote MrBeast Burger as agreed – and then sabotaged the business through public smears. The countersuit accuses Donaldson of leveraging his massive social media following to “disparage[] the brand and [VDC] in a slew of highly damaging social media posts, which were quickly amplified in numerous media outlets, just as he intended.” In VDC’s telling, MrBeast’s very public disavowal of his own burger brand (via tweets and videos to his millions of followers) amounted to a deliberate torpedoing of the venture out of spite.

“This case is about a social media celebrity who believes his fame means that his word does not matter… and that he can renege and breach his contractual obligations without consequence. He is mistaken.”, the VDC complaint pointedly states. VDC alleges that Donaldson’s complaints about quality were exaggerated and not reflective of the overall customer sentiment. “Every restaurant gets periodic bad reviews… The reality is that the overwhelming majority of customers were highly satisfied, and the product was excellent,” VDC asserted, claiming issues were relatively few compared to the volume sold. From VDC’s perspective, MrBeast’s public griping (and the negative press it generated) did far more damage than a few cold fries ever could.

The countersuit detailed how MrBeast had tweeted statements like “If I had the ability to close MrBeast Burger, I would have done so a long time ago… Sometimes when ur young you sign a [shitty] deal.” and “Moving on from MrBeast Burger” – posts that were later deleted but not before headlines spread. In one online comment included in the filing, MrBeast lamented “The company I partnered with won’t let me stop even though it’s terrible for my brand. Young Beast signed a bad deal.” VDC argues these statements were false and disparaging and constituted a breach of the non-disparagement clauses of their agreement. Moreover, VDC claims MrBeast’s negativity directly caused sales to plummet, hurt relationships with supply partners, and even harmed the livelihoods of the 1,500+ restaurants that had been cooking MrBeast Burgers for customers. One striking claim was that Donaldson’s “relentless attacks” only began after he tried (and failed) to negotiate a more lucrative contract or an early exit from the deal. In other words, VDC suggests that when MrBeast couldn’t get the contract terms reworked to his liking, he decided to trash the project publicly to get out of it – a characterization MrBeast obviously disputes. The company is seeking damages “in the nine-figure range” for the harm to its business and reputation, and to hold MrBeast to the original contract he signed. The legal fight has become a high-stakes showdown over broken trust and broken contracts, with each side arguing the other’s conduct tanked what could have been a lucrative enterprise.

The Role of Text Messages and Digital Evidence

One of the most fascinating (and instructive) aspects of this battle is how text messages and social media posts have become pivotal evidence. In court filings, VDC’s lawyers meticulously catalogued MrBeast’s tweets and online comments criticizing MrBeast Burger – even those that were quickly deleted – to demonstrate his alleged bad faith. For example, even though Donaldson erased his July 2023 tweet announcing he’d gladly shut down the burger chain if he could, VDC noted that “as Donaldson had planned, the damage was done” once the media picked it up. The lesson? In the digital age, the internet never truly forgets. Screenshots and archives meant MrBeast’s words could and would be used against him, deletion notwithstanding.

More explosively, private text messages have surfaced that shed light on MrBeast’s state of mind during the fallout. In October 2024, a report by The Information unveiled a series of text exchanges from March 2023 between MrBeast and a business confidant (later confirmed as Trey Steiger, co-founder of another influencer-focused company). These leaked texts are blunt and revealing. In one message, an irate Donaldson wrote: “I’m just never going to promote [MrBeast Burger] again and let it slowly die, f** those pieces of s***. If they give me control, I’d make them rich. But instead they hold me hostage and try to make me their b**h.”. He further vented that he comprised “60% of [VDC’s] revenue… Without me there is no company so they will sue instantly to keep me in line.” These texts show a very different side of the story – one where MrBeast felt trapped, exploited, and furious. He believed VDC was holding his brand hostage, and his solution (at least privately) was to stop promoting the venture and let it die on the vine.

From a legal standpoint, such candid messages can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, they corroborate VDC’s claim that MrBeast intentionally withdrew support to tank the brand (he literally says he won’t promote it and expects a lawsuit as a result). This could bolster VDC’s tortious interference and breach claims, suggesting calculated sabotage. On the other hand, the messages also support MrBeast’s narrative that he was denied any meaningful say in the business (“if they give me control, I’d make them rich”) and was deeply frustrated by the contract (“they hold me hostage”). They highlight that he felt the only way to protect his personal brand from further harm was to pull back from an arrangement he viewed as one-sided and harmful.

Critically, the availability of these texts and tweets has shaped the trajectory of the dispute. Had these communications not been preserved, the court (and public) might have a murkier picture of each party’s true intentions. Instead, we have a goldmine of digital evidence offering unfiltered insight – evidence that lawyers on both sides can use to argue their case. This underscores a vital point for anyone in business: preserve your communications. In high-profile influencer-brand partnerships especially, text messages, DMs, and emails aren’t just idle chatter – they may become key evidence that determines legal outcomes. Both MrBeast and VDC have learned this the hard way. VDC’s team diligently saved online posts to support their claims, and MrBeast’s own private messages (likely obtained in legal discovery or leaked) became public, revealing motives that now must be explained in court.

Key takeaway: If it’s typed into a phone or computer, assume it could someday be read aloud in a courtroom. Maintaining thorough records of all business communications – and being mindful of what you say – is crucial. In this case, text message preservation and review might very well tip the scales by proving one side’s narrative over the other’s. At the very least, the MrBeast Burger saga shows that unfiltered digital words can come back to haunt (or help) you in a legal fight.

Best Practices for Influencer-Brand Partnerships and Contracts

The MrBeast vs. VDC feud is a cautionary tale that future influencer-brand deals will study closely. Here are some best practices for structuring these partnerships to avoid similar disasters:

• Do Thorough Due Diligence: Before signing anything, research your partner’s track record. Influencers should vet a potential licensee or operator for quality standards, customer reviews, and business history. Brands should likewise examine an influencer’s reputation and reliability. A bit of homework upfront can prevent partnering with a company that might tarnish your image (or an influencer who might not uphold their end). MrBeast admitted he, as a “young” creator, “signed a bad deal” without foreseeing the consequences. Due diligence and consulting experienced advisors or attorneys can flag such issues in advance.

• Clear Contracts with Quality Control Clauses: It’s essential to define quality expectations and enforcement mechanisms in the contract. If you’re lending your name to a product (be it burgers or anything else), specify performance standards: e.g. acceptable customer rating levels, food preparation guidelines, delivery times, etc. Include clauses that give the influencer some oversight or audit rights. MrBeast’s contract limited his ability to change the menu or enforce quality improvements, leaving him feeling powerless. A better contract might allow for termination or penalties if quality drops below an agreed threshold. Both parties should agree on how feedback will be handled – for instance, will the influencer have a direct line to report issues to the partner’s management, and a timeframe for fixes? Don’t leave quality purely to “good faith”; bake standards into the agreement.

• Define Promotion and Communication Obligations: Influencer partnerships usually rely on the celebrity’s promotion to drive sales. Be very clear about promotional commitments – how often will the influencer plug the product on YouTube, Instagram, etc., and what are the expectations for their ongoing involvement. Likewise, the brand partner should commit to certain marketing spend or operational support. Misaligned expectations here can breed resentment. In this case, VDC claims MrBeast’s “inability to promote” the burger line violated their agreement, while MrBeast felt he couldn’t in good conscience promote a subpar product. A well-structured deal could, for example, tie the influencer’s promotional duties to the company meeting certain quality metrics. Also, include a clause about public communications: both sides should agree not to disparage each other publicly and to handle disputes privately or through arbitration whenever possible. This way, if issues arise, you won’t immediately have a Twitter war damaging the brand before anyone can remedy the problem.

• Dispute Resolution and Exit Strategy: No one enters a partnership expecting it to fail, but smart contracts plan for the worst. Include a dispute resolution process (mediation, arbitration, or at least a mandatory negotiation period) to address grievances. If MrBeast and VDC had a clear protocol to handle quality complaints – e.g. quarterly review meetings, or the ability to temporarily pause operations to fix issues – they might have avoided the fallout. Also, crucially, negotiate an exit clause. Under what conditions can either party terminate the deal early? Perhaps if certain performance benchmarks aren’t met or after a set term with notice. MrBeast had to seek a court’s permission to exit because his deal apparently had no easy termination for him. An exit clause (with appropriate compensation or buyout terms) provides a safety valve for both sides and can prevent a total breakdown.

• Document Everything (and Don’t Delete): As evidenced by this case, every text, email, and post can matter. Treat business communications professionally and keep records. Use written communication to confirm verbal discussions or decisions (“just to recap our call, we will ...”). This creates a paper trail if misunderstandings arise. If an issue starts brewing – say, repeated customer complaints – document when and how it was raised with the partner. (MrBeast alleged his complaints to VDC “fell on deaf ears”, which, if he documented those complaints in writing, would support his claims.) On the flip side, brands should save influencers’ social media posts and messages related to the project, in case they need to prove a breach or disparagement. Never assume a private message will stay private. It’s wise to keep communications respectful and factual. Had MrBeast kept his cool in texts (instead of using phrases like “pieces of s***”), he’d have less to explain in litigation. In short: communicate often, preserve all correspondence, and always assume a judge might read it one day.

• Set Realistic Expectations & KPIs: Both parties should agree on what success looks like and measure it. If one side is focused on rapid expansion (as VDC was) and the other prioritizes customer satisfaction, those goals can clash. Establish key performance indicators (KPIs) that balance growth and quality. For example, target a certain average customer rating or return-customer rate alongside expansion goals. This ensures the operator doesn’t sacrifice quality for quantity. In influencer ventures, the creator’s brand equity is on the line, so metrics around customer sentiment are as critical as raw sales. Regularly review these metrics together. If they start to slip, pause expansion and fix problems. Had there been a mechanism to catch the downward trend in customer satisfaction earlier, MrBeast’s team and VDC might have course-corrected instead of driving the brand to a breaking point.

Key Lessons and Takeaways for Content Creators and Businesses

This high-profile controversy offers a trove of lessons for influencers, entrepreneurs, and business owners involved in brand partnerships. Whether you’re planning an influencer product line or running a company that teams up with big personalities, consider these takeaways:

• Fame Doesn’t Override Contracts: No matter how famous or powerful a partner is, a signed contract is binding. MrBeast, one of the world’s biggest YouTubers, couldn’t simply walk away without legal consequences – and neither could the company. Enter agreements with the understanding that you’ll be held to your promises. Courts generally won’t care about your clout; they care about the contract. If you’re not prepared to stick it out (barring breach by the other side), don’t sign, or negotiate for terms that give you flexibility.

• Protect Your Brand (and Fulfill Your Duties): If your brand is your livelihood, you must zealously guard its reputation but also uphold your end of the bargain. MrBeast felt compelled to protect his brand from subpar products, but by doing so in a rogue manner (publicly trashing the product), he opened himself up to claims of breach. The balance is delicate: include brand protection clauses in contracts (e.g. quality requirements, approval rights), and if the partner fails those, exercise your rights through proper channels. Conversely, if you’re the business partner, remember that an influencer’s brand image is their bread and butter – work with them to address concerns before it reaches a breaking point. Both sides should approach issues collaboratively: it’s easier to tweak recipes or fix operations behind the scenes than to fight a PR battle in public.

• Mind Your (Digital) Mouth – It’s All Permanent: In the age of instant screenshots, everything you say online or in a text can and will be used against you. It’s tempting for creators (and executives) to vent frustrations in a late-night text or a Twitter reply, but those words don’t disappear. MrBeast’s off-the-cuff comments – from “sometimes when ur young you sign a bad deal” tweets to profane private texts – became centerpieces of the litigation narrative. Always assume that private communications could leak. If you wouldn’t want to see it quoted in a lawsuit or news article, think twice before typing it. This doesn’t mean you can’t express concerns or negotiate hard; it means do so professionally. Stick to facts and avoid personal attacks or hyperbole. In disputes, a calm email outlining issues will serve you better than an angry tweet or text if things escalate legally.

• Preserve and Review Communications: On a related note, keep records of all important communications and don’t delete them in a panic. In any business partnership, especially one that could turn contentious, having a complete history of emails, text messages, and documents is invaluable. It allows you to review what was agreed upon and how issues were handled. If VDC hadn’t saved MrBeast’s disparaging posts, they would lack evidence for their countersuit. If MrBeast didn’t document his complaints to VDC, it would be harder to prove he tried to remedy problems before suing. From a legal perspective, once litigation is foreseeable, deleting evidence (even if unflattering) can lead to accusations of spoliation. Practically speaking, it’s better to have an ugly text that you can explain than to destroy it and face even worse repercussions. Establish good habits: use project-specific email threads or messaging channels that can be archived. Should a dispute arise, you’ll be grateful for that archive to piece together the timeline and substantiate your claims. Also, periodically review those communications yourself – you may catch miscommunications early or realize an informal promise was made that never made it into the contract (and then proactively clarify it). In short, record everything, and treat those records as a shield rather than a liability.

• Plan for the Worst, Hope for the Best: No one enters a partnership expecting a fallout like MrBeast Burger’s. But as this case shows, things can go south despite best intentions. Smart businesspeople hope for success but plan for failure. This means negotiating fair exit terms, setting clear mutual expectations, and maintaining open lines of communication throughout the partnership. If you notice red flags – declining quality, unmet obligations, brewing disagreements – address them early and formally. It’s far cheaper and easier to fix a problem or reach a buyout privately than to wage a $100 million court battle. By the time MrBeast publicly tweeted his regrets, the relationship with VDC was likely beyond repair. A candid, off-the-record meeting months earlier might have saved both parties a lot of grief (and legal fees). So, cultivate a working relationship where issues can be raised without blowing up, and refer back to the contract to guide resolutions. And if you truly find yourself in an untenable deal, consult legal counsel on the proper way to exit or renegotiate – don’t improvise a solution on social media.

Conclusion: The MrBeast Burger controversy is more than just internet drama; it’s a case study in influencer-brand partnerships, contract law, and digital communication in business. The saga underscores how crucial it is to get partnerships in writing correctly, to uphold your commitments, and to maintain professionalism in all communications. It also highlights an often overlooked aspect of modern business – the need for diligent text message and email preservation as both a preventive measure and a legal safeguard. In an era where brand collaborations between online creators and companies are increasingly common, the lessons from MrBeast and Virtual Dining Concepts’ legal battle will likely shape how such deals are struck going forward. By learning from their missteps – balancing growth with quality, aligning incentives, and respecting the power of one’s words – future partnerships can aim for the viral success of a MrBeast Burger without the bitter aftermath. In the end, whether you’re an influencer or a corporation, strong contracts, clear communication, and careful record-keeping are the secret ingredients to a successful (and lawsuit-free) collaboration. 🍔✨