...
By Robert Alexander
Senior Crime & Court Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
McDonald's has been accused of a "deliberate sleight of hand" in its branding of the McRib, with a lawsuit alleging that the customer favorite "does not contain any actual pork rib meat at all."
The case was filed on December 23, 2025, in Illinois, with the plaintiffs requesting the judge approve one lawsuit for all McRib buyers in the U.S., plus smaller groups from certain states and Washington, D.C. if the nationwide group isn’t approved.
Newsweek contacted McDonald's, attorneys for the plaintiffs, legal experts and consumer law groups via email outside of normal office hours on Monday for comment.
Read More on U.S.
Why It Matters
The lawsuit tests whether a fast-food product’s name and visual presentation alone can be treated as materially misleading to a reasonable consumer at class-action scale, and whether survey evidence and pricing data are strong enough to satisfy requirements for commonality (everyone in the group says they were misled in the same way) and predominance—that the same shared issue is the biggest, most important part of the case, more than any personal differences.
The outcome could shape how federal courts balance branding implication versus ingredient disclosure in consumer protection cases involving limited-time menu items.
...
What To Know
Brand Name, Consumer Expectations and the Reasonable Buyer Test
The core of the lawsuit is not a safety or contamination claim. Instead, the plaintiffs have built their case around consumer interpretation of branding.
The complaint asserts that customers “trust that the sandwich they’re biting into is exactly what the name implies," and argues that McDonald’s has “cultivated a sense of anticipation around the McRib, leveraging its scarcity to drive sales across its many locations."
The filing further frames the name McRib as “a deliberate sleight of hand," alleging it would lead “reasonable consumers" to believe the product contained “at least some meaningful quantity of actual pork rib meat."
The plaintiffs cited survey results, saying most respondents expected the sandwich to contain rib meat.
The complaint states clearly that, despite the patty’s rib-like shape, “the McRib does not contain any actual pork rib meat at all."
It alleges the patty “is reconstructed using ground-up portions of lower-grade pork products such as, inter alia, pork shoulder, heart, tripe, and scalded stomach."
McDonald’s public response disputes the complaint’s factual claims, stating the lawsuit “distorts the facts," and that the McRib is “made with 100 percent seasoned boneless pork" sourced from U.S. suppliers.
The company denies the use of “pork hearts, tripe, or scalded stomach," adding that such ingredients are “not allowed in any of its pork products."
What People Are Saying
Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the complaint arguing the intent and strategy are beyond just “misleading," say: “This pattern of omission is not incidental, but part of a broader, intentional marketing strategy designed to obscure the truth and maximize sales." On McDonald’s bringing back a product only briefly to create hype, urgency, and faster purchases, reducing the chance people check details beyond the product name, they add: “This cycle of sporadic availability creates a sense of urgency that discourages deep consumer scrutiny."
What Happens Next
The McRib class action now moves into McDonald’s first filing, most likely a motion to dismiss attacking the legal sufficiency of the complaint. The judge will rule on whether any claims can proceed.
If the case survives, the court will decide if a large group of consumers can be represented collectively based on shared legal issues, survey evidence, and alleged price premiums.
If a class is certified, discovery begins, allowing both sides to exchange internal records, marketing materials, and expert challenges, often increasing pressure for a settlement; if certification is denied, the case can continue only for named plaintiffs, making broad consumer compensation less likely.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines