McDonald’s Satellite litigation history

The franchisor and its predecessor

Pending (4)

• Peter Le, et al. v. McDonald’s Corporation

  pending

  McDonald’s Corporation · filed 2025-12-23 · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois · 1:2-cv-15609 (as printed)

  “… (Case No 1:2-cv-15609). On December 23, 2025, plaintiffs filed a complaint against our predecessor in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of themselves and a purported class of nationwide McDonald’s customers who purchased McRib sandwiches. Plaintiffs allege that our predecessor deceptively marketed the McRib sandwich by,”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

• George R. Michell, et al. v. McDonald’s Corporation, McDonald’s USA, LLC, et al.

  pending

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2024-05-09 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York · 1:24-cv-03442

  “… (Case No. 1:24-cv-03442). On May 9, 2024, plaintiff, a franchisee, filed a complaint against our predecessor, three of our officers, and us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges that we targeted plaintiff to force him out of the McDonald’s System because he is”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Within this matter, as the filing narrates it

  • Counterclaim in George R. Michell, et al. v. McDonald’s Corporation, McDonald’s USA, LLC, et al.

    pending

    Brought against a franchisee · names the franchisor · filed 2024-10-10 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York · 1:24-cv-03442

    “On the same day, we and our predecessor filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiff is in breach of all his franchise agreements and that we have the right to terminate them.”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.

• Tammy Williams v. McDonald’s USA, LLC

  pending

  filed 2024-10-31 · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois · 1:24-cv-11275

  “… (Case No. 1:24-cv-11275). On October 31, 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of herself and a purported class of nationwide McDonald’s customers who were exposed to E. coli as a result of purchasing Quarter Pounder sandwiches from McDonald’s. The plaintiff alleges that she purchased”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

• Christine Crawford, et al. v. McDonald’s USA, LLC and McDonald’s Corporation

  pending

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2020-08-31 · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division · 1:20-cv-05132

  “… (Case No. 1:20-cv-05132). On August 31, 2020, plaintiffs, seventy-seven former franchisees, filed a complaint against us and our predecessor in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Their complaint alleges that we and our predecessor discriminated against Black franchisees on the basis”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Within this matter, as the filing narrates it

  • McPherson Complaint (former franchisee Mitch McPherson)

    pending

    Brought by a franchisee · names the franchisor · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

    “On June 12, 2023, the court ordered a complaint filed by another former franchisee, Mitch McPherson, that raised similar claims, to be transferred and identified as a related complaint (the “McPherson Complaint”). On June 5, 2023, we and our predecessor moved to dismiss the McPherson Complaint.”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.

Concluded (11)

• In the Matter of Stephen J. Easterbrook and McDonald’s Corporation

  settled

  Government or regulatory action · McDonald’s Corporation · filed 2023 · Securities and Exchange Commission (administrative) · File No. 3-21269

  “… (File No. 3-21269). In January 2023, our predecessor entered into an administrative settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) concerning certain of its proxy disclosures relating to the process behind former CEO Steve Easterbrook’s separation from our predecessor in 2019. In connection with this settlement,”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “In connection with this settlement, and without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, our predecessor agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 14a-3. The SEC recognized our predecessor’s substantial cooperation as well as the affirmative action taken by our predecessor to recover value for its shareholders”

• Kytch, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corporation

  dismissed

  McDonald’s Corporation · filed 2022-03-01 · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · 1:22-cv-00279

  “… (Case No. 1:22-cv-00279). On March 1, 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint against our predecessor in the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware. The complaint alleged that our predecessor engaged in false advertising, trade libel and deceptive trade practices by warning franchisees of safety concerns associated with a device designed to diagnose and repair”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On May 9, 2025, the court dismissed the case against our predecessor, as well as a related matter against one of our suppliers and its distributor, pursuant to all defendants agreeing to pay $19,000,000 in exchange for a mutual release of claims.”

• Herbert Washington et al. v. McDonald’s USA, LLC and McDonald’s Corporation

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2021-02-16 · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division · 4:21-cv-00367

  “… (Case No. 4:21-cv- 00367). On February 16, 2021, plaintiff, a current franchisee, filed a complaint against us and our predecessor in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, alleging that we and our predecessor discriminated against him on the basis of his race. The parties agreed to settle”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The parties agreed to settle this matter by us purchasing all thirteen of the plaintiff’s franchises for $33,500,000 and plaintiff agreed to a general release and to dismiss all claims.”

• James Byrd, Jr. and Darrell Byrd v. McDonald’s USA, LLC and McDonald’s Corporation

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2020-10-29 · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division · 1:20-cv-6447

  “… (Case No. 1:20-cv- 6447). On October 29, 2020, plaintiffs, two current franchisees, filed a complaint against us and our predecessor in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that we and our predecessor discriminated against Black franchisees on the basis of their race.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The parties agreed to settle this matter by us purchasing all four of the plaintiffs’ franchises for $6,500,000 and plaintiff agreed to a general release and to dismiss all claims.”

• Stephanie Turner v. McDonald’s USA, LLC and McDonald’s Corporation

  settled

  filed 2019-08-15 · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division · 1:19-cv-05524

  “… (Case No. 1:19-cv-05524). On August 15, 2019, plaintiff, who worked in corporate-owned and franchisee-owned restaurants, filed a complaint against us and our predecessor in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Her complaint alleged that a provision of McDonald’s franchise agreement unlawfully”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. On January 5, 2026, the court dismissed the case pursuant to the parties’ agreement to settle the matter for $12,500,000 and a mutual release of claims.”

• Tavarua Restaurants, Inc. et al. v. McDonald’s USA, LLC

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2019-01-04 · U.S. District Court, Southern District of California · 19-CV-0021-MMA-NLS

  “… (Case No. 19-CV-0021-MMA-NLS). On January 4, 2019, the plaintiffs, the estate of a recently deceased franchisee and that franchisee’s operating companies, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California against us. The complaint alleges that we improperly exercised a right of first refusal seeking to purchase”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “Following the ruling, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and mutual release that provided for the sale of the eight franchises to us for $15.6M.”

• Leinani Deslandes, et al. v. McDonald’s USA, LLC, and McDonald’s Corporation and Does 1-10

  settled

  filed 2017-06-28 · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division · 1:17-cv-04857

  “… (Case No. 1:17- cv-04857). On June 28, 2017, plaintiff, a former franchisee employee, filed a complaint against us and our predecessor in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that a provision of McDonald’s franchise agreement unlawfully prohibited her from”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On January 5, 2026, the court dismissed the case pursuant to the parties’ agreement to settle the matter for $12,500,000 and a mutual release of claims.”

• Sebastian E. Lentini, et al. v. McDonald’s USA, LLC, et al.

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2017-09-18 · Hudson County Superior Court, New Jersey · LCV2017217171

  “… (Case No. LCV2017217171). On September 18, 2017, plaintiff, a current franchisee, and his operating companies, filed a complaint against us and certain current and former regional employees in Hudson County Superior Court, New Jersey. The complaint alleged a pattern and practice of age discrimination, constructive termination of”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “We agreed to settle this matter by purchasing all six of plaintiff’s franchises for $22,000,000 and plaintiff agreed to a general release and to dismiss all claims.”

• Farah Gohari v. McDonald’s Corporation, et al.

  settled

  McDonald’s Corporation · filed 2016-06-20 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division · 2016-CH-08261

  “… (Case No2016-CH-08261). On June 20, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint against our predecessor and our former franchisee of two O’Hare airport restaurants in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division. Plaintiff alleges that the Digital Menu Board prices at the two restaurants were lower than the prices at the”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On December 27, 2024, our predecessor agreed to settle the dispute on an individual basis by paying $180,000 in exchange for a release of all claims. The court dismissed the complaint on December 30, 2024.”

• José Quijano and JCQ Foods, Inc. v. McDonald’s USA, LLC, McDonald’s Systems de Puerto Rico, Inc. h/n/c Arcos Dorados Puerto Rico, Inc., Golden Arch Development Corporation, Inc., et al.

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2014-11-20 · Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, Arecibo, Puerto Rico · CAC 402-2014-3456

  “Quijano and JCQ Foods, Inc. v. McDonald’s USA, LLC, McDonald’s Systems de Puerto Rico, Inc. h/n/c Arcos Dorados Puerto Rico, Inc., Golden Arch Development Corporation, Inc., et al. (Case No. CAC 402-2014- 3456). On November 20, 2014, the owner of 14 McDonald’s restaurants in Puerto Rico and his operating entity, filed a complaint against us, our predecessor’s Puerto Rican companies, Arcos Dorados”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The defendants agreed to settle this matter by paying $6,319,344.08 for plaintiffs’ remaining ten franchises and attorneys’ fees, and the parties exchanged mutual releases.”

• AA&S Food Service Corp., et al. v. McDonald’s Corporation, McDonald’s Systems de Puerto Rico, Inc., Golden Arch Development Corporation, Inc., et al.

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · McDonald’s Corporation (and its Puerto Rican companies) · filed 2007-01-29 · Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan, Puerto Rico · KAC07-0725 (603)

  “… (Case No. KAC07-0725 (603)). On January 29, 2007, the plaintiffs, franchisees of various McDonald’s restaurants in Puerto Rico, filed a complaint against our predecessor, its Puerto Rican companies, and others in the Puerto Rico Court of First”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The defendants agreed to settle this matter by paying $15,780,655.92 for plaintiffs’ remaining twenty-three franchises and attorneys’ fees, and the parties exchanged mutual releases.”