Judge Lets McDonald’s McRib Lawsuit Proceed in Chicago

Daniel Okafor

A federal judge in Chicago allowed three claims in a four-consumer McRib lawsuit to proceed on Oct. 30. U.S. District Judge April M. Perry rejected McDonald’s argument that the sandwich’s name does not promise rib meat. She also dismissed five claims.

Perry framed the ruling around a consumer’s reasonable expectations. “The court is not persuaded by defendant’s many arguments that it would be unreasonable or fanciful to think the McRib contains rib meat,” she wrote. Her language put the product name at the center of the dispute.

What does the lawsuit allege?

The lawsuit was filed by four consumers last December. The plaintiffs say the highly popular sandwich contains no rib meat. They also allege that McDonald’s makes the patty from cheaper pork parts, including shoulder, heart and tripe.

They say the company presses that mixture into the shape of a rack of ribs, creating the visual match that makes the product name central to their allegations. The legal theory rests on the gap between those ingredients and the expectation created by the product name. As Perry described it, the question was whether a reasonable customer could expect actual ribs in something called McRib.

How has McDonald’s defended the name?

McDonald’s describes the McRib’s meat as “seasoned boneless pork,” according to The New York Times, and the company lists the sandwich’s ingredients on its website. It argued that the “Mc” prefix identifies the food as a McDonald’s product and does not guarantee rib meat. The company also denies using organ meat.

That denial conflicts with the plaintiffs’ allegation that the patty includes heart and tripe. The company’s legal position also asks the court to separate a brand shorthand from a factual promise about the sandwich’s contents. Perry declined to treat the “Mc” prefix as decisive.

Why did the judge let the case proceed?

Perry acknowledged that a McFlurry may not contain a literal flurry. Her comparison supported a narrower point: a customer could reasonably expect rib meat in something called McRib.

The ruling does not award damages or establish that the patty contains no rib meat, but it prevents McDonald’s from ending the proposed class action at this stage. McDonald’s still faces the “Mc” prefix and the boneless description as central parts of its defense. The deception, fraud and unjust enrichment claims may continue.

What does the ruling change?

The case advances with deception, fraud and unjust enrichment claims intact. Perry dismissed five other claims, so the ruling narrows the lawsuit without ending the dispute. The surviving claims focus on the contention that McDonald’s marketing created an expectation its ingredients do not meet.

The suit does not put a dollar figure on damages. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an end to the McRib’s current marketing. That second request matters because it reaches beyond compensation and targets how the company presents the product to customers.

For McDonald’s, the immediate exposure comes from the product name rather than a finding about the patty’s composition. The company can point to its ingredient list and “seasoned boneless pork” description, but the surviving claims ask a court to test whether that language defeats the expectation created by calling the sandwich a McRib.

Where does the case go next?

The unresolved factual questions include whether the patty contains rib meat and whether McDonald’s marketing caused consumers to buy under a mistaken assumption. McDonald’s must defend its description and the meaning of the product name, while the plaintiffs must support their allegations about the recipe and marketing.

The practical issue for McDonald’s is whether a court will treat a familiar menu name as an implied promise about composition. Perry’s Oct. 30 ruling lets three claims proceed, but it does not settle whether the product name serves as an implied promise about the sandwich’s contents.

If the plaintiffs prove their recipe and marketing allegations, the requested end to current McRib marketing would turn a recipe dispute into a direct challenge to how McDonald’s sells the item.