Anyone in the United States who bought food at a McDonald’s may be covered by two proposed class actions alleging McDonald’s used a machine-learning pricing engine to coordinate menu prices among its franchised and company-run restaurants. The second suit also names the consulting firm Deloitte. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. McDonald’s has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A McDonald’s customer filed a proposed nationwide class action on October 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that McDonald’s turned its menu-pricing software into a tool for fixing prices. The case is Thomas v. McDonald’s USA, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-12149, assigned to Judge Thomas M. Durkin. The 31-page complaint claims McDonald’s pooled confidential sales data from thousands of restaurants that are supposed to compete with one another, ran it through a machine-learning “pricing engine,” and pushed franchisees to follow the engine’s recommended prices. McDonald’s denies the allegations and says franchisees set their own prices.A second customer filed a related proposed class action in the same court on October 15, 2026. That case, Rossi v. McDonald’s Corporation, No. 1:26-cv-12651, is assigned to Judge Sunil R. Harjani. It makes similar claims about the pricing engine but adds the consulting firm Deloitte Consulting LLP as a defendant, alleging Deloitte ran the franchisee-facing side of the system.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What Does the Lawsuit Allege?
About 95% of the roughly 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants in the U.S. are owned by independent franchisees, and McDonald’s has said publicly that those franchisees set their own prices. The Thomas complaint alleges that since no later than 2019, that independence has been undercut by a McDonald’s-controlled pricing engine. According to the complaint:- McDonald’s required franchisees to use a company-owned point-of-sale system that sends transaction-level sales data to McDonald’s, with no contractual limit on how McDonald’s uses it.
- The engine combines that data from franchised and company-run stores and generates recommended prices item by item and restaurant by restaurant, based in part on estimates of customers’ “willingness to pay.” One example alert quoted in the complaint told a franchisee: “Your restaurant is showing MEDIUM SENSITIVITY to Price.”
- Under what the complaint calls the “30% rule,” the engine recommends raising an item’s price when at least 30 percent of stores have recently raised it. The plaintiff argues that makes one restaurant’s price depend on whether its competitors already raised theirs.
- Starting in January 2026, McDonald’s franchising standards required franchisees to be “constructively engaging” with the company’s approved pricing consultant and tools, and the complaint alleges “pricing non-compliance” is weighed when McDonald’s decides on franchise renewals and new locations.
- The pricing portal’s terms of service warn users that fellow users “may be competitors of each other” and must follow antitrust law, which the complaint treats as an acknowledgment of the risk.
The complaint leans on McDonald’s own 2024 statement that its average menu prices rose about 40 percent from 2019 to 2024, the same period it says the engine was in use. Much of its detail is attributed to a Reuters investigation published September 29, 2026. The complaint also says McDonald’s bought the AI company Dynamic Yield in 2019 for $300 million and that the consulting firms Deloitte and Tiger Analytics reportedly helped build the platform. None of those companies is a defendant in Thomas; the later Rossi suit, described below, sues Deloitte.
The Second Lawsuit: Rossi v. McDonald’s and Deloitte
The 44-page Rossi complaint, filed by a New York customer and represented by Berger Montague, tells a similar story but puts more weight on Deloitte. According to the complaint:- Deloitte’s pricing practice developed a “Strategic Pricing Analyzer” that, on information and belief, is the “McDonald’s Pricing Analyzer” franchisees use to review the system’s recommended prices.
- Deloitte employs “Pricing Advisors” who, the plaintiff alleges, deliver those recommendations to competing McDonald’s restaurants and present pricing trends to franchisees at regional meetings two to three times a year.
- On information and belief, Deloitte is the “approved Pricing Consultant” that McDonald’s has required franchisees to be “constructively engaging” with since January 2026.
- McDonald’s issues its recommendations in coordinated “pricing rounds,” and franchisees also line up on nationally advertised prices through advertising cooperatives and franchisee votes.
The complaint argues that Deloitte took part as an independent co-conspirator rather than simply as a vendor working for McDonald’s. It also points out that McDonald’s once sued its own pork suppliers over a similar data-sharing arrangement, calling it “the modern equivalent of the proverbial smoke-filled room.” Deloitte has not responded in court, and none of these allegations has been tested.
Who Is in the Proposed Class?
The Thomas complaint asks the court to certify two groups:- Nationwide class: all persons in the United States who bought menu items at any McDonald’s restaurant, whether operated by McDonald’s or by a franchisee.
- Illinois subclass: all Illinois residents who bought menu items at a McDonald’s restaurant in Illinois.
McDonald’s, its affiliates, officers and directors, and the judges on the case are excluded. The class definitions have no start date; the alleged conspiracy is described as running from no later than 2019 to the present.
The Rossi complaint proposes a single nationwide class with a fixed start date: all persons and entities in the United States who bought one or more menu items at a McDonald’s restaurant in the U.S., whether company-run or franchised, from January 1, 2019 until the effects of the alleged conduct end. It excludes the defendants and all McDonald’s franchisees, and it has no Illinois subclass. A court decides later whether any class is certified and what its boundaries are.
What Laws Does It Claim Were Broken?
The complaint brings four claims. Two arise under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the federal law against agreements that restrain trade: one for price fixing, which it argues is illegal on its face, and one for an unlawful exchange of competitively sensitive information. The other two are under the Illinois Antitrust Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, for the Illinois subclass. Only McDonald’s USA, LLC and McDonald’s Corporation are sued. Franchisees, McDonald’s-owned operating companies and outside vendors are described as co-conspirators but are not defendants.The plaintiff asks for triple damages under federal antitrust law, damages and restitution under Illinois law, a court order barring the alleged agreements, and an order requiring McDonald’s to pay for notifying the class. The case is represented by Clarkson Law Firm.
The Rossi complaint brings only the two federal claims, price fixing and information exchange under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, against all three defendants. It asks for triple damages, a declaration that the conduct violates the Sherman Act, and a permanent order barring the defendants from using one restaurant’s nonpublic data to set recommendations for competing restaurants and from weighing pricing compliance in franchise reviews, renewals or growth decisions.
What Has McDonald’s Said?
McDonald’s has disputed the core premise. The company told Reuters that “AI does not set the price of a Big Mac or any other menu item,” and told Nation’s Restaurant News that “McDonald’s franchisees do” set menu prices, that the complaint is “filled with inaccuracies,” and that it will “vigorously defend against this lawsuit.” A day before the suit was filed, McDonald’s posted a statement on its corporate website saying it does not use dynamic pricing and that franchisees are not required to accept pricing recommendations. Those statements responded to the first lawsuit. McDonald’s has not filed a response in court in either case, and Deloitte has not responded to the Rossi suit.How Does This Fit With Other Algorithmic Pricing Cases?
The case is one of a growing number of lawsuits claiming that shared pricing software can do what competitors are not allowed to do by agreement. The complaint cites a U.S. Department of Justice statement of interest in a Chicago health-insurance case, In re MultiPlan, which argued that using a common algorithm to set prices can violate the Sherman Act, and a Washington federal decision in a rent-pricing case, Duffy v. Yardi Systems. It also points to an earlier lawsuit by a Connecticut franchisee, Michell v. McDonald’s in federal court in Brooklyn, that followed a viral photo of an $18 Big Mac meal. Similar algorithmic pricing claims have produced a $359.9 million RealPage rent settlement for apartment renters.What Happens Next?
No defendant has appeared in either case as of October 17, 2026. In Rossi, Judge Harjani has set an initial status hearing for January 14, 2027. The two suits are pending before different judges in the same court, and overlapping cases like these are often reassigned to one judge or combined. Large antitrust suits usually move next to a motion to dismiss, where the court decides whether the complaint states a plausible claim, and only later to class certification. OCA will update this page as the cases develop.Questions
Who is covered by the McDonald’s AI pricing class action?
Both lawsuits propose nationwide classes of people in the United States who bought menu items at a McDonald’s restaurant, whether run by McDonald’s or a franchisee. The Thomas complaint adds an Illinois subclass and sets no start date. The Rossi complaint covers purchases from January 1, 2019 onward and also takes in businesses, but excludes franchisees. No class has been certified in either case.
Is there a McDonald’s price-fixing settlement or claim form?
No. The two cases were filed on October 2 and October 15, 2026 and are at the complaint stage. There is no settlement, no certified class and no claim form. If either case ever settles or a class is certified, the court would approve a notice explaining any claim process.
What is the “30% rule” in the McDonald’s lawsuit?
The Thomas complaint, citing Reuters reporting, alleges that McDonald’s pricing engine recommends raising an item’s price when restaurants that account for at least 30 percent of stores have already raised it recently. The plaintiff argues that ties one restaurant’s price to whether its competitors already raised theirs. McDonald’s says franchisees set their own prices and are not required to follow recommendations.
What has McDonald’s said about the AI pricing lawsuit?
Responding to the first lawsuit, McDonald’s told reporters that AI does not set the price of a Big Mac or any other menu item, that franchisees set their own prices, and that the complaint is filled with inaccuracies. The company said it will vigorously defend the case. Neither McDonald’s nor Deloitte had responded in court to the second lawsuit as of October 17, 2026.
Are franchisees or consulting firms being sued?
Franchisees are not. A consulting firm is: the second lawsuit, Rossi, names Deloitte Consulting LLP as a defendant alongside McDonald’s USA, LLC and McDonald’s Corporation, alleging Deloitte was an independent participant in the scheme. The first lawsuit, Thomas, sues only the two McDonald’s companies. Both complaints describe franchisees and McDonald’s-owned restaurant companies as unnamed co-conspirators.
How is the Rossi lawsuit different from the Thomas lawsuit?
Rossi, filed October 15, 2026, adds Deloitte Consulting LLP as a defendant, defines the class as purchases from January 1, 2019 onward, excludes franchisees from the class, and brings only two federal Sherman Act claims. Thomas, filed October 2, 2026, sues only McDonald’s, sets no class start date, and adds an Illinois subclass with two Illinois state-law claims. The cases are before different judges in the same court.
Sources
• Thomas v. McDonald’s USA, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-12149 (N.D. Ill.) — docket and complaint• Rossi v. McDonald’s Corporation, No. 1:26-cv-12651 (N.D. Ill.) — docket and complaint
• Reuters (via Claims Journal) — October 6, 2026 report on the lawsuit and McDonald’s response
• Nation’s Restaurant News — McDonald’s statement on the lawsuit
• McDonald’s — corporate statement on how menu prices are set
