“Mzansi’s fave pizza”? ARB says Debonairs’ claim still half-baked

On the double decker meal. Source: Debonairs.

Romans behind complaint

The decision, handed down on 13 March 2026, follows a complaint by Roman’s Pizza and marks a continuation of an earlier ruling in December 2025, where the claim was first found to be unsubstantiated.

At the heart of the dispute is a simple but sticky question: what actually makes something “Mzansi’s fave”? According to the ARB, not what Debonairs submitted.

In its latest effort, Debonairs—owned by Famous Brands—provided a mix of survey data, research documents, and credentials linked to Plus 94 Research, a SAMRA-accredited entity. But the Directorate found a crucial ingredient missing: clear, expert verification that the data actually proves the claim being made.

Put differently, being popular isn’t the same as being the favourite, and the ARB isn’t willing to make that leap without explicit confirmation from a qualified, independent researcher.

Said the ARB:

While it may indeed be reasonable to conclude that a high average spend is synonymous with consumer preference, the Directorate cannot draw such a conclusion without confirmation from the expert who did the research.

Burger King says goodbye to mascot, hello to better service

Karabo Ledwaba  17 Mar 2026

Default vs choice

One of the key pieces of evidence showed Debonairs ranking among the top six fast food brands by average spend. But the ARB wasn’t convinced that spending equals preference. Consumers might spend more because prices are higher—or spend there by default rather than choice. Without clarity, the claim remains speculative.

Similarly, a City Press Readers’ Choice dataset suggested strong performance in a pizza category, but again lacked formal validation from a SAMRA-accredited expert confirming that it supports the “fave pizza” claim.

The ruling underscores a strict standard in South African advertising: if you’re going to make a sweeping, market-leading claim, you need airtight proof—not just data, but properly interpreted and verified data.

For now, the ARB has kept its original instruction in place: the claim must stay off the table until it’s properly substantiated.