For more than four decades, McDonald’s McRib sandwich has been a cult favorite, its sporadic returns to menus across the United States sparking excitement and a flurry of limited-time purchases. But as 2025 drew to a close, the McRib found itself at the center of a legal battle that could reshape how fast-food giants market their most iconic products. On December 23, 2025, four consumers—Peter Le of California, Charles Lynch of New York, Dorien Baker of Illinois, and Darrick Wilson of Washington, D.C.—filed a federal class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, accusing McDonald’s of misleading millions of customers by marketing the McRib as if it contains real pork rib meat, when, according to the complaint, it does not.
The lawsuit, spanning 45 pages and citing 16 legal claims including fraud, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection laws in California, New York, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., argues that McDonald’s carefully engineered the McRib’s name, shape, and marketing to create the impression that customers were getting actual rib meat—a premium cut in the world of pork. As reported by Quartz, the plaintiffs allege that the McRib’s boneless, rib-shaped patty is in fact made from “lower-grade” pork cuts such as shoulder, heart, tripe, and scalded stomach, none of which qualify as rib meat.
“Despite its name and distinctive shape—its meat patty has been deliberately crafted to resemble a rack of pork ribs—the McRib does not contain any actual pork rib meat at all,” the lawsuit reads, as cited by PPC Land. “Instead, its meat patty is reconstructed using ground-up portions of lower-grade pork products such as, inter alia, pork shoulder, heart, tripe, and scalded stomach.” The plaintiffs claim that McDonald’s knowingly markets the sandwich in a way that deceives reasonable consumers, who would “reasonably (but mistakenly) believe that a product named the ‘McRib’ will include at least some meaningful quantity of actual pork rib meat.”
The complaint goes further, highlighting how the McRib’s limited-time availability and aggressive marketing campaigns create a sense of urgency, pushing customers to make quick decisions without scrutinizing the product’s true contents. This “scarcity mystique,” as Quartz described it, has trained fans to act fast—sometimes before they can even consider what “McRib” legally promises. According to the lawsuit, this cycle of sporadic availability “creates a sense of urgency that discourages deep consumer scrutiny and deters sustained discussion or scrutiny into its actual ingredients, which further bolsters the longevity of consumer misconceptions regarding the sandwiches’ rib meat content.”
For the plaintiffs, the alleged injury is not just about nutrition—it’s also financial and psychological. They argue that they paid a premium price for what they believed was rib meat. The lawsuit points to the McRib’s pricing during its December 2024 run, with a national average of $5.63 and prices reaching as high as $7.89 in some locations. By comparison, the average Big Mac price in the same period was $5.29, according to data cited from McRib Locator. The implication: consumers shelled out more because they thought they were getting something special—a sandwich with real rib meat.
The complaint seeks nationwide class certification for anyone who purchased a McRib in the four years prior to the lawsuit’s filing, with additional subclasses for California, New York, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. The plaintiffs are asking for damages, restitution, and injunctive relief to prevent what they describe as “further deceptive advertising practices.”
Each plaintiff shared their personal experience in the official court filing. Peter Le, for instance, stated: “On or around Nov. 15, 2024, Plaintiff Le purchased a McRib after having been induced by McDonald’s false representations, omissions and concealments into the reasonable but false belief that it contained actual pork rib meat. Had Plaintiff Le known that the McRib did not contain any actual pork rib meat, he would not have purchased the McRib or would only have purchased it for a lower price.” Similar statements were made by Charles Lynch, Dorien Baker, and Darrick Wilson, all expressing that they would have acted differently had they known the true composition of the sandwich.
McDonald’s, for its part, has strongly denied the allegations. In a statement provided to NBC Chicago and The Independent, a company spokesperson said, “This lawsuit distorts the facts and many of the claims are inaccurate. 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 spokesperson also denied the inclusion of hearts, tripe, or scalded stomach in the McRib, insisting that the sandwich uses “100 percent boneless pork with BBQ sauce, onions, and pickles.”
McDonald’s has faced questions about the McRib’s composition before. Back in 2014, the company enlisted former “MythBusters” host Grant Imahara to tour a processing facility and debunk rumors, demonstrating that the patty is made from ground pork, water, salt, dextrose, and preservatives—not plastic or organ meats. Nonetheless, the current lawsuit argues that the combination of name, shape, and limited-time hype still leads reasonable consumers to believe they are buying a product with actual rib meat.
The McRib’s legacy dates back to 1981, when it first appeared on McDonald’s menus. Despite never being a permanent fixture, its periodic returns have only fueled its mystique and popularity. In mid-November 2025, the McRib returned to select U.S. cities such as Chicago, Miami, Dallas, St. Louis, Atlanta, Seattle, and Los Angeles, again for a limited time. According to NBC Chicago, this sporadic availability is now being used as evidence in court, with plaintiffs arguing that it compounds consumer confusion about what is actually inside the sandwich.
The case now sits before a federal judge in Chicago, who must decide whether McDonald’s crossed the line from clever marketing into actionable deception. Is it enough for a product to be called “boneless pork” if the name and shape evoke something more premium? Or does the responsibility lie with consumers to check ingredient lists—especially for fast food, where speed and impulse drive most purchases?
Whatever the outcome, the lawsuit has sparked a broader conversation about food marketing, transparency, and the expectations consumers bring to the drive-thru window. For now, McDonald’s maintains its sandwich is exactly what it claims to be, while the plaintiffs press for accountability—and perhaps a little more truth in advertising—one McRib at a time.
