CHICAGO — A class-action lawsuit filed against McDonald's Corporation accuses the fast-food giant of deceiving customers about the ingredients in its popular McRib sandwich, claiming the product contains no actual pork rib meat despite its name and branding. The suit, lodged on December 23, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, seeks damages for consumers who purchased the sandwich over the past four years, alleging fraudulent marketing practices that have led to millions in consumer harm.
The McRib, a limited-time offering that has become a cult favorite since its debut in 1981, is known for its barbecue-sauced pork patty shaped like a rack of ribs, served on a toasted bun with onions and pickles. McDonald's has capitalized on the sandwich's scarcity, bringing it back periodically to generate buzz and boost sales. According to the lawsuit, viewed by The Appleton Times, this strategy has misled fans into believing they are enjoying premium pork rib meat, when in reality, the patty is made from lower-grade pork products.
Four plaintiffs — residents of California, New York, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. — filed the complaint, each claiming they would not have bought the McRib or would have paid less for it had they known the truth about its composition. The suit details that the meat patty is "reconstructed using ground-up portions of lower-grade pork products such as, inter alia, pork shoulder, heart, tripe and scalded stomach." It argues that the name "McRib" is a "deliberate sleight of hand," implying the presence of prized rib meat, which commands a higher market price due to its fat content and flavor.
"Fans eagerly await each return, trusting that the sandwich they’re biting into is exactly what the name implies: a sandwich crafted using pork ‘rib’ meat, which is prized by consumers for its high fat content and rich flavor," the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs contend that McDonald's has "cultivated a sense of anticipation around the McRib, leveraging its scarcity to drive sales across its many locations." By shaping the patty to resemble a rack of ribs and using the word "Rib" in the name, the company allegedly deceives reasonable consumers, the suit claims.
McDonald's official description of the McRib, as listed on its menu, calls it a "seasoned boneless pork dipped in a tangy BBQ sauce, topped with slivered onions and tangy pickles, all served on a toasted homestyle bun." Notably absent from this description is any mention of rib meat specifically. The lawsuit alleges that despite this, the branding and advertising suggest otherwise, leading consumers to purchase a product they otherwise would avoid.
"The reality, however, is far from what McDonald’s advertising and branding suggest. Despite its name and distinctive shape—its meat patty has been deliberately crafted to resemble a rack of pork ribs," the complaint reads. The plaintiffs accuse McDonald's of fraudulent omission, concealment, misrepresentation, and negligence, asserting that these practices have driven sales of the sandwich, which the company continues to reintroduce despite knowing the truth.
Each of the four named plaintiffs — identified in court documents only by their initials — expressed personal disappointment in affidavits attached to the filing. One from California stated they had eagerly anticipated the McRib's return multiple times, only to feel misled upon learning of its actual ingredients through online discussions. Similarly, the New York plaintiff claimed to have spent over $50 on McRibs in the last two years, believing they were indulging in a rib-based treat.
The lawsuit seeks class certification for all U.S. consumers who bought a McRib in the four years leading up to the filing, potentially encompassing millions of purchases given the sandwich's popularity. It demands compensatory damages, restitution, punitive remedies, statutory penalties, and an injunction to stop McDonald's from using deceptive naming, marketing, or advertising for the McRib. Additionally, the plaintiffs request coverage of lawyers' fees, costs, and interest on any awards.
"McDonald’s deceptive omissions and misleading marketing have resulted in millions of dollars in consumer harm, warranting legal remedies including compensatory damages, restitution, and injunctive relief to prevent further deceptive advertising practices," the suit argues. The case is assigned to Judge John Robert Blakey, with an initial status hearing scheduled for February 2026.
In response to the lawsuit, McDonald's USA issued a statement to NBC Chicago, defending its practices and ingredient transparency. "Food quality and safety are at the heart of everything we do – that’s why we’re committed to using real, quality ingredients across our entire menu. Our fan-favorite McRib sandwich is made with 100% pork sourced from farmers and suppliers across the U.S. We’ve always been transparent about our ingredients so guests can make the right choice for them," the statement read. The company further claimed that the lawsuit "distorts the facts and many of the claims are inaccurate."
McDonald's emphasis on "100% pork" aligns with its broader ingredient disclosures, available on its website and in response to regulatory requirements. The company sources its pork from U.S. suppliers adhering to animal welfare standards, but it has not publicly detailed the exact cuts used in the McRib patty beyond the general "boneless pork" label. Industry experts note that fast-food chains often use restructured meat products to achieve consistent texture and cost efficiency, a common practice not unique to McDonald's.
The McRib's history adds context to the controversy. Introduced experimentally in the early 1980s, it gained a devoted following after lackluster initial sales, leading to its on-again, off-again availability. Promotions tied to events like the FIFA World Cup or holiday seasons have amplified its allure, with social media campaigns encouraging fans to "demand" its return. According to Nielsen data reported in food industry publications, McRib launches have historically increased McDonald's traffic by up to 20% in participating markets.
This lawsuit is not the first to target McDonald's over labeling or ingredients. In recent years, the company has faced suits regarding chemical additives in its fries, antibiotic use in chicken, and even the "100% beef" claim for Big Macs amid questions about processing. Consumer advocacy groups, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, have long criticized fast-food marketing for blurring lines between whole foods and processed alternatives, though they have not yet commented on this specific case.
Legal observers suggest the McRib suit could hinge on whether courts view the name and shape as implied warranties under consumer protection laws like Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, which the complaint invokes. Similar cases, such as those against other brands for misleading "natural" claims, have resulted in settlements exceeding $10 million. McDonald's, represented by the firm Perkins Coie, has 21 days from service to respond formally.
As the case unfolds, it highlights ongoing tensions between fast-food innovation and consumer expectations for authenticity. For McDonald's, with over 13,000 U.S. locations and annual revenues topping $25 billion, the stakes involve not just financial remedies but potential changes to a menu item that generates significant hype. Plaintiffs' attorney Maria Pappas, based in Chicago, told reporters outside the courthouse that her clients aim to hold corporations accountable for "playing on our love of barbecue without delivering the real thing."
Whether the McRib's future includes a name change or clearer labeling remains to be seen, but for now, fans continue to debate its merits online, unaware or unconcerned by the legal battle brewing over its boneless bones.