Judge allows McRib meat lawsuit against McDonald's to proceed
Left 0%
Center 0%
Right 100%
0 left · 0 center · 3 right
What happened
On Friday, U.S. District Judge April Perry in Chicago denied McDonald's bid to dismiss in full a proposed class-action lawsuit over the meat in its McRib sandwich. Four consumers filed the suit in December, alleging the sandwich's name, appearance, and marketing mislead customers into thinking the patty contains rib meat. Perry allowed consumer-deception, fraud, and unjust-enrichment claims to proceed and dismissed five other claims without prejudice. The ruling does not find that McDonald's advertised deceptively; it holds only that those claims may go forward at this stage.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles
3 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 3 of 3
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: U.S. District Judge April Perry
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 3 of 3
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court ruling
- Credits another outlet 0 of 3
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 3
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 31, 01:31 UTC by Fox Business, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Fox Business (court ruling).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT.
Only right-leaning outlets are covering this story
— the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning coverage is currently the only coverage of this ruling. It reports that a Chicago federal judge allowed consumer deception, fraud, and unjust enrichment claims against McDonald's over the McRib to proceed. Five other claims were dismissed without prejudice. The coverage recounts the allegation that the sandwich is named and shaped like ribs but contains no rib meat. It cites a survey in which 72% of respondents expected rib meat. Fox Business and the New York Post do not disagree. The New York Post largely reprints the Fox Business piece. The coverage carries McDonald's denial that the patty uses heart, tripe, or scalded stomach. It also reports the company's claim that the sandwich is 100% pork. The judge, the coverage notes, rejected a trademark-name defense by comparing the McRib to the McChicken. What the coverage does not settle is whether an ingredient list that names only pork would have cured the claimed confusion. Left-leaning coverage is silent, so a reader of those outlets would miss that the judge found it too early to say reasonable consumers could not expect rib meat.
Does McDonald's public ingredient list disclose the cut of pork in the McRib, or only that it is pork?
Bottom line
Left-leaning outlets have not covered the McRib ruling, so only Fox Business and New York Post readers would know a Chicago judge let deception claims proceed after 72% of surveyed consumers expected rib meat.
The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
- U.S. District Judge April Perry in Chicago allowed consumer deception, fraud and unjust enrichment claims to proceed while dismissing five other claims without prejudice.
- A plaintiff survey found that 67% of respondents considered rib meat important or very important to their purchasing decision.
- The ruling allows portions of the case to proceed but does not establish that McDonald's engaged in deceptive advertising.
- The lawsuit was filed by four consumers in December.
- The lawsuit alleges the McRib contains lower-grade pork products, including pork shoulder, heart, tripe and stomach, rather than rib meat.
The Right View
Fox Business and the New York Post report that Perry found it too early to say reasonable consumers would not expect rib meat, citing marketing allegations and surveys in the court papers: 72% of respondents expected rib meat and 67% considered it important or very important to buying the sandwich. The outlets say the suit alleges a lower-grade mix including pork shoulder, heart, tripe, and stomach rather than rib meat. McDonald's has denied those claims, saying the McRib is 100% pork from U.S. suppliers, that it does not use heart, tripe, or scalded stomach, and that its public ingredient list lists pork as the primary ingredient. Coverage notes Perry rejected the argument that the trademarked name bars deception claims, pointing to products such as the McChicken and Egg McMuffin. McDonald's did not immediately comment.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it turns on a named federal judge's ruling, a December filing by four named consumers, and survey figures cited in court papers. Established: deception, fraud, and unjust-enrichment claims survived dismissal; five other claims were dismissed without prejudice; the court has not found deceptive advertising. Alleged and disputed: that the McRib contains no rib meat, that marketing misleads buyers, and that the patty includes heart, tripe, or stomach—claims McDonald's has denied. No left-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for McDonald's formal response, surviving pleadings, discovery on ingredients and marketing, and whether a class is certified.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.