McHaggis? Court Green Lights Lawsuit Alleging that the McRib Contains Non-Rib Meat

Many were excited when McDonald’s recently announced, “The McRib is back.”  The question is whether it is really back or really a McRib. In an interesting decision out of Chicago, U.S. District Judge April Perry ruled that McDonald’s must go to trial on a class action lawsuit alleging that the popular McRib sandwich is made with non-rib meat. The lawsuit alleges that McDonald’s merely shapes the meat to look like ribs but uses shoulder, heart, tripe, or stomach — making it sound more like McHaggis. McDonald’s vehemently denies the accusation and stands by its representation that the only ingredients are “pork, water, salt, dextrose, and rosemary extract.” The class action was filed under an array of tort, fraud, and misrepresentation theories. In the end, however, the impact on McDonald’s could have the same business impact that the “pink slime” stories had on Taco Bell.

The ruling comes just three days after the McRib’s return to McDonald’s menus across the country.  It first debuted in 1981.

The complaint alleges:

“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. 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.” It alleges that McDonald’s uses the deceptive advertising to sell over 30 million such sandwiches each year. It also includes surveys showing that 72% of purchasers of McRibs expected that the product contains rib meat, which is more expensive than these other alleged meats.”

The class action was filed with sixteen original courts alleging fraud, implied warranty, false advertising, consumer protection violations, and misrepresentation claims. It also alleges a breach of express warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-313. The court dismissed most of these claims but allowed consumer-deception, fraud, and unjust-enrichment claims to proceed.

Perry rejected McDonald’s claim that this is merely a trademarked name and does not allow for such liability, noting that other McDonald’s products, such as the McChicken and Egg McMuffin, describe their ingredients.

The shape of the McRibs featured prominently in the complaint, though the company will argue that people understand that it is obviously manufactured since there are no bones in the meat. However, the judge found that the McRib’s shape could support the consumers’ claim that McDonald’s presentation created a misleading impression about the meat they were buying.

The key to the ruling is that, at this pre-trial stage when facts are read in favor of the non-moving party (the class action) on a motion to dismiss, the court cannot find that there is no possibility for the class members to prevail. She is giving them a trial to prove their case.

For McDonald’s, it is a major blow since attention to the lawsuit will inevitably drive down sales. The company denies the accusations, but consumers may be a bit skittish about the whole barbecued tripe thing.

Regardless of the outcome, the public response could present the same pressures as the “pink slime” Taco Bell controversy, which led companies (including McDonald’s) to discontinue the use of lean, finely textured beef (LFTB) despite a defamation lawsuit by the beef people. Notably, ABC/Disney entered into a $177 million settlement over the story, but LFTB never recovered from the pink slime coverage.

McDonald’s will, of course, have its chance to prove its case in court, but in the interim, some customers may not  be “Lovin’ It.”