A New Jersey couple is suing Taco Bell because they paid more than $12 for two meals that were advertised on television for $5 each.

Nelson Estrella and his wife, Joan, drove to a nearby Taco Bell just a few miles from their Middlesex home in May 2018 to satisfy their craving for a Chalupa Supreme.

The mouth-watering meal, which includes a deep-fried chalupa shell taco filled with steak, sour cream, lettuce, cheese, and tomatoes as well as cinnamon twists and a medium drink, was offered by Taco Bell locations for $5 each - or, at least that’s what they thought.

According to a lawsuit, they were surprised to discover that instead of the $10 charge for two meals, they had to pay $12.18 before taxes.

When the couple asked the manager at Green Brook Taco Bell why the meals cost more than advertised, they were told that each individual restaurant was not obligated to participate in the promotion and that prices may vary, according to NJ Advance Media.

Nelson Estrella and his wife, Joan, are suing Taco Bell in federal court for false advertising

The couple says it paid more than $12 for two Chalupa Cravings meals even though a commercial offered it for $5 each

Management at the Taco Bell in Green Brook, New Jersey (seen in the above stock image) told the couple that the deal was only valid in locations that chose to participate in the promotion

Less than a year later, the Estrellas filed a lawsuit against the fast food chain and its parent company, Yum! Brands.

‘You can’t tell someone you are going to charge them $5 in big bold print and then take it away with a fine print disclaimer,’ said Douglas Schwartz, the couple’s lawyer.

‘You can’t do that. It’s against the law.’

The Estrellas ‘sustained an ascertainable loss, in the form of time wasted driving to the subject Taco Bell, the gasoline expended to drive their vehicle to the subject Taco Bell, and in the amount of $2.18, which is the difference between what they should have been charged ($10.00 before taxes) and what they were charged ($12.18 before taxes),’ according to the lawsuit.

Although the lawsuit was initially filed in Middlesex County Superior Court in August, it was recently moved to federal court.

The Taco Bell commercial cited in the lawsuit shows a woman in a school library teaching young kids who are behaving rowdily.

Exasperated and needing a break, the woman says her solution is to head on over to Taco Bell and pay a $5 Chalupa Cravings Box.

While the commercial does promote the meal as costing $5, there is a legal disclaimer at the bottom of the screen.

The commercial they saw clearly offers the Chalupa Cravings Box for $5 each, but the fine print below (highlighted in yellow) states: 'At participating locations for a limited time. Prices may vary'

The disclaimer, which is in much smaller print, says ‘prices may vary.’

‘It’s a classic bait and switch,’ Schwartz said.

‘It’s consumer fraud being perpetrated upon not only citizens of New Jersey, but all over the country.

‘Taco Bell has reaped huge profits from their false, misleading and deceptive advertising.’

A spokesperson for Taco Bell told NJ Advance Media: ‘Taco Bell and its franchisees are proud to provide millions of guests with delicious, affordable food every day.

‘Our advertisements are truthful and accurate, and we will defend this case vigorously.’

On Twitter, there wasn’t much sympathy for the couple that filed the lawsuit.

‘They are suing Taco Bell, which seems like a really good use of the legal system over two bucks and change,’ tweeted Carol Roth

Another Twitter user tweeted: ‘This got me... “A dispute over $2.18 at Taco Bell literally has become a federal case.”’

Tweeted another Twitter user: 'What ever happened to "Oh wait, I thought this was $5? It's not? Ok, never mind”.’

‘Taco Bell's isn't that small, and fairly clear,’ tweeted Gary A. Kline. ‘Nice try on their part, but the couple should really be going after those ads advertising for occupational cancer lawyers - now there's some tiny print.’

Tom Schultz tweeted: ‘But there are the damages for infliction of emotional distress *just kidding*.’

Jennifer Beightel tweeted: ‘What attorney would even consider taking this case? WTAF?’

‘They are suing Taco Bell, which seems like a really good use of the legal system over two bucks and change,’ tweeted Carol Roth.

Another Twitter user tweeted: ‘This got me... “A dispute over $2.18 at Taco Bell literally has become a federal case.”’

‘Taco Bell's isn't that small, and fairly clear,’ tweeted Gary A. Kline.

‘Nice try on their part, but the couple should really be going after those ads advertising for occupational cancer lawyers - now there's some tiny print.’

Another Twitter user wrote: ‘What ever happened to "Oh wait, I thought this was $5? It's not? Ok, never mind”.’

Jennifer Beightel tweeted: ‘What attorney would even consider taking this case? WTAF?’

Tom Schultz tweeted: ‘But there are the damages for infliction of emotional distress *just kidding*.’