McDonald's McRib lawsuit (Le v. McDonald's Corporation)

A federal judge in Chicago has allowed a proposed class action over the McRib to move forward. The lawsuit, Le v. McDonald's Corporation, No. 1:25-cv-15609, says McDonald's leads customers to believe the McRib contains pork rib meat through its name, its rib-shaped patty and its marketing, when the plaintiffs say it contains no rib meat at all.

On October 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge April M. Perry denied McDonald's request to dismiss the whole case. According to Fox Business, the consumer deception, fraud and unjust enrichment claims will proceed, while five other claims were dismissed without prejudice. McDonald's denies the allegations and calls the claims meritless.

This is an early ruling, not a finding that McDonald's did anything wrong. No class has been certified. There is no settlement, no claim form and no money available, but people who bought a McRib in the United States may be part of the proposed class if the case goes on.

The defendant is McDonald's Corporation, a Delaware corporation headquartered at 110 North Carpenter Street in Chicago, according to the complaint. Fox Business reports nearly 14,000 McDonald's restaurants in the U.S. and more than 45,000 worldwide. McDonald's has sold the McRib periodically since 1981, usually as a limited-time item.

The four named plaintiffs, each of whom says he bought a McRib in late 2024, are:

• Peter Le of Baldwin Park, California, who says he bought a McRib on or around November 15, 2024.
• Charles Lynch of Poughkeepsie, New York, who says he bought it many times, most recently in December 2024.
• Dorien Baker of Chicago, Illinois, who says he bought it several times in December 2024.
• Darrick Wilson of Washington, D.C., who says he bought one on or around November 28, 2024. One line of the complaint spells his first name "Derrick."

The plaintiffs are represented by Thiago M. Coelho of Wilshire Law Firm, PLC in Los Angeles. McDonald's is represented by Shook, Hardy & Bacon, according to docket summaries.

• December 23, 2025: the plaintiffs filed a 45-page complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
• December 29, 2025: the case was assigned to Judge Perry.
• February 26, 2026: McDonald's moved to dismiss.
• March 19, 2026: the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which is not publicly available.
• April 10, 2026: McDonald's moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing closed May 14.
• October 27, 2026: the McRib returned for a limited time at select restaurants in cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Philadelphia and Dallas, according to USA TODAY.
• October 30, 2026: Judge Perry denied the motion in part.

The plaintiffs say the word "Rib" in the name, and a patty shaped to look like a rack of spare ribs or baby back ribs, tell customers the sandwich contains at least some real rib meat. Instead, the complaint alleges, the McRib is a "restructured" pork product made from cheaper parts such as pork shoulder, heart, tripe or scalded stomach.

To show why that matters, the complaint cites a U.S. Department of Agriculture report for November 17, 2025, valuing rib meat at $152.32 per hundredweight compared with $108.84 for butt and $85.90 for loin. It says the McRib sold for an average of $5.63 during its December 2024 run and up to $7.89 at some locations, while a Big Mac averaged $5.29 over the same period.

The plaintiffs also rely on two surveys. In the first, 155 of 215 screened respondents (72%) said they expected the McRib to contain rib meat. In the second, 118 of 174 respondents (67%) said rib meat was important or very important to their decision to buy it. The plaintiffs say they would not have bought the sandwich, or would have paid less, had they known.

McDonald's denies the claims. After the lawsuit was filed, the company said it "distorts the facts and many of the claims are inaccurate" and that the McRib "is made with 100% pork sourced from farmers and suppliers across the U.S." It has said it does not use hearts, tripe or scalded stomach in the McRib. In court, McDonald's argued that distinctive product names do not fool reasonable consumers and that the plaintiffs' preference for a certain cut of pork "doesn't turn McDonald's truthful marketing into consumer fraud," Reuters reported. After the ruling, McDonald's said: "This lawsuit distorts the facts and the claims are meritless."

Judge Perry decided only that some claims are strong enough to continue. At this stage a court assumes the complaint's factual allegations are true and asks whether they state a plausible legal claim.

According to Reuters, Perry said it was premature to accept McDonald's argument that no reasonable consumer could expect rib meat. She noted that McDonald's website describes the sandwich only as containing pork and that reasonable consumers need not research a $7 fast-food sandwich before buying it. She also said ads highlighting the rib-like shape could support a claim of intent to defraud, though more proof would be needed. "Plaintiffs' proffered understanding of 'McRib' is not unreasonable or fanciful," she wrote. Fox Business reports she rejected the argument that the trademarked name shields McDonald's, pointing to names like McChicken and Egg McMuffin that describe their ingredients.

The court has not decided what is in the McRib, whether customers were misled, or whether anyone is owed money. Public reports do not say which five claims were dismissed, and the written order is not freely available.

The original complaint proposes these groups. The amended complaint may define them differently, and no court has approved any of them:

• Nationwide class: everyone living in the United States who bought a McRib from McDonald's starting four years before the complaint was filed (from about December 23, 2021) until class notice is sent.
• California subclass: California residents who bought a McRib at a California location in the same four-year period.
• New York, Illinois and D.C. subclasses: residents who bought a McRib at a location in their state or the District, starting three years before filing (from about December 23, 2022).

McDonald's, its affiliates, officers, directors and legal representatives, and the judge and court staff are excluded. The complaint says class members could be identified through their own proof of purchase or McDonald's records.

There is nothing to sign or file. If you bought a McRib in the past few years, you can:

• Keep receipts, app order history or card statements showing McRib purchases. They may help if a class is certified or a settlement is reached later.
• Be wary of anyone offering a "McRib settlement" payout. No settlement has been announced.
• Speak with a lawyer if you want advice about your own situation.

Nothing is available now. The complaint asks for compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages, statutory penalties, interest and attorneys' fees, plus an order stopping the challenged naming and marketing. It gives no dollar figure per person. Whether any money is paid will depend on future rulings, a trial or a settlement.

• No claim deadline exists. There is no settlement or claim form.
• Purchase windows: the proposed classes reach back four years before December 23, 2025, for the nationwide and California groups, and three years for New York, Illinois and D.C.
• Your rights if a class is certified: class members would receive notice explaining how to stay in the class or opt out.

• Restructured meat: meat pieces or trimmings bound together and formed into a shape. The complaint uses the term to describe the McRib patty.
• Motion to dismiss: a request asking the court to end a case before evidence is gathered because the complaint does not state a legal claim.
• Dismissed without prejudice: a claim is thrown out for now but may be refiled or repleaded.
• Unjust enrichment: a claim that a company kept money it would be unfair to keep.

McDonald's will typically need to answer the remaining claims. The plaintiffs may try to revive the dismissed claims. The case would then move into discovery, where both sides exchange evidence, before the plaintiffs ask the court to certify a class. A settlement could come at any stage, but none has been reported.

This article relies on the original complaint filed December 23, 2025, reporting by Reuters and Fox Business on the October 30, 2026, ruling, and docket summaries. We did not review the October 30 order or the amended complaint, which are not freely available, so the current claims and class definitions may differ from those described. McDonald's statements are quoted as reported. The survey results and price figures come from the plaintiffs' complaint and have not been tested in court.

Class Action Pulse is not a law firm or settlement administrator and does not guarantee eligibility or payment. This article is general information, not legal advice.