McDonald's hit with major legal blow as judge allows McRib lawsuit to go ahead

McDonald’s must face a U.S. lawsuit over its iconic McRib sandwich after failing to dismiss claims it has been defrauding customers. The fast-food giant was accused of intentionally shaping McRib patties with ridges to make them look like pork ribs back in December 2025.Plaintiffs say this makes customers believe the sandwich contains rib meat, an expensive cut known for its higher fat content and rich flavor. The McRib, which has been on the menu periodically since 1981, consists of “seasoned boneless pork” dipped in BBQ sauce rather than cuts from the ribcage.McDonald’s McRib sandwich faces legal actionThiago Coelho, a lawyer for the four plaintiffs, said his clients will continue seeking accountability for deceptive marketing (McDonald's)McDonald’s has also been accused of using lower-grade pork products including shoulder, heart, tripe or stomach of pigs – causing customers to overpay ⁠for the McRib, one of its most expensive menu items.The chain has maintained that it does not use hearts, tripe or stomach in the McRib, and ​says it has always been transparent about its ingredients. "Our fan-favourite McRib sandwich is made with 100 percent pork sourced from farmers and suppliers across the U.S.… This lawsuit distorts the ​facts and ⁠the claims are meritless," it said in a statement.While dismissing some claims, ​U.S. District Judge April Perry in McDonald's hometown of Chicago called it premature ​to accept the company's argument that no reasonable consumer could expect the McRib to contain rib meat.She said Friday that McDonald's website describes the sandwich only as containing pork, and reasonable ​consumers need not do research before buying a $7 fast-food sandwich.McDonald’s denies allegations against its McRib sandwich (Getty)The judge also said ​that adverts highlighting the meat's rib-like shape could support a claim of intent to defraud, though ‌further ⁠proof was needed.One survey submitted by plaintiffs found that 72 per cent of respondents expect rib meat in a McRib, and 67 per cent said it mattered to their decision to buy it. The judge also rejected the argument that a trademarked name settles the question, noting that the McChicken and Egg McMuffin are named for what is in them.Thiago Coelho, a lawyer for the four plaintiffs, said his clients will continue seeking accountability for deceptive marketing.