McRib Buyers Can Keep Pressing Claims That the Name Implies Rib Meat

A lawsuit over what the name of a fast food sandwich promises will move forward. According to a Reuters report by Jonathan Stempel on October 30, US District Judge April Perry in Chicago refused to dismiss a proposed class action claiming that the McRib's name misleads customers into believing it contains rib meat.

The judge dismissed some of the claims, but allowed the core of the case to continue. That does not mean the plaintiffs have won. It means they will have the chance to try to prove their case.

What the Plaintiffs Claim

The plaintiffs argue that the name McRib suggests the sandwich is made from rib meat. According to Reuters, the case contends that customers paid for something they reasonably believed to be rib meat and did not get it.

In refusing to dismiss the case, Judge Perry wrote that "Plaintiffs' proffered understanding of 'McRib' is not unreasonable or fanciful." She noted the sandwich's price of around $7 and that the McDonald's website describes it only as pork, according to Reuters.

The plaintiffs are represented by lawyer Thiago Coelho. The case is filed as a proposed class action, meaning the plaintiffs hope to represent a wider group of McRib buyers. Whether a class is ever certified is a separate question the court has not yet decided.

McDonald's Response

McDonald's denies the claims and has called them meritless, Reuters reports. The company also denies that the McRib contains hearts, tripe or stomach.

That denial is important. At this stage, the court has not found that McDonald's misled anyone, and it has not made any finding about what is in the sandwich. A ruling on a motion to dismiss only asks whether the complaint, taken at face value, states a claim the law recognizes.

Why the Ruling Matters

Motions to dismiss are where many consumer cases end. Companies often argue that no reasonable customer could be misled by a name or label, and courts frequently agree. Judge Perry's ruling suggests she was not ready to say that about the McRib, at least not yet.

The phrase "not unreasonable or fanciful" captures the legal test. A court at this stage asks whether a reasonable consumer could plausibly understand a product name the way the plaintiffs say. If so, the question of what consumers actually believed, and whether they were harmed, is left for later stages of the case.

Names, Labels and the Reasonable Consumer

Food naming cases have become a familiar part of consumer protection law. They often turn on a simple question: what does a reasonable shopper take a name or picture to mean? Some names are treated as descriptive, implying a specific ingredient. Others are seen as brand names that no one would read literally.

The McRib, sold periodically since 1981, sits in an interesting middle ground. Its name has been part of popular culture for decades, which McDonald's may argue makes it a brand rather than a description. The plaintiffs, for their part, argue the word "rib" carries a clear meaning that ordinary buyers rely on when they order.

What Comes Next

The case now moves toward discovery and, potentially, a fight over whether it can proceed as a class action on behalf of many buyers. Either side could still prevail, and the judge's ruling offers no prediction about the outcome. Many such cases settle, and many are later dismissed on stronger evidence.

For now, the McRib remains on the menu whenever McDonald's chooses to bring it back, and the dispute will play out in the months ahead. For businesses, the ruling is a reminder that product names can carry legal weight. For consumers, it is a sign that courts are willing to take a hard look at what familiar names actually promise. Court Magazine will follow the case as it develops.