CX Network's key insights:
- McDonald's faces a lawsuit over the McRib with claims that marketing misrepresents the sandwich's ingredients.
- Even for iconic brands like McDonald's, it's clear that consumer trust is at risk when ingredient transparency is questioned.
- Scarcity and hype drive excitement and sales, but it also might delay consumer scrutiny until after purchase, therefore affecting brand perception.
- The suit reflects a broader trend in food and beverage, where consumers and courts increasingly challenge claims about ingredients and marketing authenticity.
McDonald’s iconic McRib sandwich – a limited-time cult favorite that has inspired anticipation, memes and even tracking websites – is now at the center of a major class-action lawsuit that’s sparking fresh debate about transparency and trust in one of the world’s most powerful brands.
The legal challenge, filed on December 23 2025, in the US District Court for the North District of Illinois, alleges that McDonald’s misled consumers about what’s actually inside the McRib by giving it the impression it contains “rib meat” – when, according to the complaint, it does not.
The lawsuit: What plaintiffs are arguing
The heart of the lawsuit centers on the name “McRib” and what consumers reasonable believe it implies. Plaintiffs from California, New York, Illinois and Washington, D.C., argue that the sandwich’s name and rib-like shape create a perception that it contains actual pork rib meat, a comparatively premium cut.
Instead, according to the complaint and reporting from multiple outlets, the McRib patty is alleged to be made from a combination of restructured pork – including lower-grade cuts such as pork shoulder, and, the lawsuit claims, other components such as heart, tripe and scalded stomach.
The lawsuit states: “The name ‘McRib’ is a deliberate sleight of hand,” and claims McDonald’s “willfully, falsely and knowingly omitted” key information about the sandwich’s ingredients.
Plaintiffs are seeking class certification on behalf of anyone who bought a McRib in the past four years, compensatory damages, restitution, and injunctive relief that would require changes to McDonald’s marketing.
Denial and defense
McDonald’s has emphatically denied the allegations. In statements to reporters, the company called the suit “meritless” and said it “distorts the facts,” pointing out that the McRib is described in official materials as “seasoned boneless pork” and that all of its pork products are made from "**100% pork sourced from U.S. farmers and suppliers".
Importantly, McDonald’s insists that the McRib does not contain heart, tripe, stomach other organ meats – language that mirrors its broader defense that the lawsuit mischaracterizes both its ingredients and how they are presented to consumers.
This clash – between the legal framing of alleged deception and McDonald’s public positioning of transparency – is central to the broader conversation playing out in newsrooms, courtrooms, and social media.
Why this lawsuit has gained national attention
Even outside legal filings, the case has generated widespread discussion – and some incredulity – about what consumers truly believed they were buying. Social platforms are awash with users debating whether anyone expected the McRib to literally contain rib meat and clawing humorously at the idea that a sandwich with “rib” in the name could be misleading.
But beyond the jokes, the lawsuit has touched on a deeper brand perception issue: Americans increasingly care about food sourcing, labelling, and corporate messaging. In the past decade, plaintiffs have brought lawsuits over a wide range of food marketing practices – from whether “natural” means anything meaningful to what constitutes “real” meat in processed products.
The McRib case is part of that trend, prompting questions such as:
- What does the name of a product really promise?
- How much detail should brands be required to disclose about ingredients?
- When does marketing hype become a legally actionable misrepresentation?
A marketing paradox
One factor the lawsuit highlights is how McDonald’s markets the McRib as a limited-time “event” item, a strategy that has helped create deep engagement and anticipation among fans.
The McRib’s sporadic availability, including a well-documented return in November 2025 to select markets across the US, contributes to its cult status and has become part of McDonald’s broader promotional calendar.
But plaintiffs contend that this scarcity strategy also discourages deep consumer scrutiny about ingredients. According to the complaint, the urgency of limited windows disincentivizes people from questioning what’s inside the sandwich until after they’ve bought it.
This dynamic is key to understanding broader customer trust implications: when brands leverage nostalgia, scarcity, and excitement, consumers may focus more on experience than on substance – at least until something goes wrong.
Surveys suggest customers expect rib meat
The lawsuit includes references to voice of the customer consumer surveys designed to measure expectations. One such survey reportedly found that a significant portion of respondents expected rib beat in the McRib based solely on the product name and image, and that this expectation influenced their purchase decisions.
Whether that survey holds up in court or how much it matters legally remains to be seen, but it underscores just how powerful perception can be – and how fragile trust can become when that perception is challenged.
What’s at stake for McDonald's and for consumer trust
If the class is certified and plaintiffs ultimately prevail on key claims, the implications extend beyond McDonald’s. A ruling against the company could force changes in how products are named, marketed and described – potentially reshaping how major brands communicate with customers at large!
Even without a legal loss, McDonald’s faces a reputational risk. Today, consumers often check ingredient lists online before making purchase decisions. So, the notion that a company might be obscuring what’s in a product (whether intentionally or not) touches on core trust issues that go well beyond one sandwich.
For McDonald’s, which serves millions daily and operates in more than 100 countries, protecting that trust is essential. As the company itself notes, food quality and safety are "at the heart of everything we do", but today’s headlines make clear that perceived transparency matters just as much.
The bigger picture
The McRib lawsuit lands amid a surge of legal and regulatory scrutiny focused on how food and beverage companies label, market, and represent their products, particularly when those claims influence consumer perceptions about quality, ingredients, and health.
Across categories from soft drinks to cereals, recent cases highlight that consumers – and courts – are increasingly willing to challenge companies over what they consider misleading or inaccurate claims about ingredients or the nature of products.
In California, for example, a lawsuit has recently accused The Coca-Cola Company of falsely labeling drinks such as Sprite and Fanta with “100% natural flavors” despite including ingredients that critics argue are synthetic – a case that underscores ongoing tensions over what “natural” actually means on packaging.
Similarly, a proposed class action against Capri-Sun alleges that its fruit punch was marketed as “100% juice” even though it contains synthetic preservatives such as citric acid – a complaint that speaks directly to consumer expectations around purity and simplicity in food and beverage labeling.
These lawsuits highlight an industry-wide backlash against marketing claims that suggest naturalness or quality, when the underlying ingredients or processing don’t match consumer expectations.