Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation We are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business relating to matters including, but not limited to, disputes with franchisees, suppliers, employees and customers, as well as disputes over our intellectual property. Burger King Company, and various affiliates, including RBI, are defendants in a class action lawsuit brought by former Burger King employees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the Burger King standard form franchise agreement. Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for each member of the class. In March 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but in August 2022 the decision was reversed on appeal and remanded for further proceedings. In April 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and in May 2025, the defendants filed an answer. In March 2026, a court-ordered mediation between the parties resulted in an impasse. While we intend to vigorously defend against these claims, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this case or estimate the range of possible loss, if any. In October 2024, purported former shareholders of Carrols filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against RBI and two individual directors of Carrols. The complaint arises from the Carrols Acquisition and alleges that RBI coerced Carrols into the transaction, that the two directors failed to disclose that their interest differed from the interests of other Carrols shareholders, and that the two directors were not independent from RBI. The complaint also includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment by RBI. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, damages and fees and expenses. In July 2025, the court denied RBI’s motion to dismiss, and in October 2025, RBI filed its answer and affirmative defense to the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The court has set a trial date for early 2027, though the date is subject to change. We intend to vigorously defend these claims, however, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this case or estimate the range of possible loss, if any.

We are involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business relating to matters including, but not limited to, disputes with franchisees, suppliers, employees and customers, as well as disputes over our intellectual property.

Burger King Company, and various affiliates, including RBI, are defendants in a class action lawsuit brought by former Burger King employees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the Burger King standard form franchise agreement. Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for each member of the class. In March 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but in August 2022 the decision was reversed on appeal and remanded for further proceedings. In April 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and in May 2025, the defendants filed an answer. In March 2026, a court-ordered mediation between the parties resulted in an impasse. While we intend to vigorously defend against these claims, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this case or estimate the range of possible loss, if any.

In October 2024, purported former shareholders of Carrols filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against RBI and two individual directors of Carrols. The complaint arises from the Carrols Acquisition and alleges that RBI coerced Carrols into the transaction, that the two directors failed to disclose that their interest differed from the interests of other Carrols shareholders, and that the two directors were not independent from RBI. The complaint also includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment by RBI. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, damages and fees and expenses. In July 2025, the court denied RBI’s motion to dismiss, and in October 2025, RBI filed its answer and affirmative defense to the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The court has set a trial date for early 2027, though the date is subject to change. We intend to vigorously defend these claims, however, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this case or estimate the range of possible loss, if any.