Customers who paid an undisclosed surcharge for orange juice with a McDonald's breakfast combo may qualify for relief if a settlement or judgment provides a claims process, typically limited by time, location, and proof of purchase requirements. Whether a claim can be made today depends on the final settlement terms, eligibility dates, and any filing deadline established by the court or settlement administrator.

The dispute centers on how breakfast combo meals were advertised and priced when customers selected orange juice as their beverage, compared with coffee or soft drinks. Menu boards and marketing materials prominently depicted orange juice alongside fixed-price combos, which led many customers to reasonably believe orange juice was included at no extra cost. In practice, an extra charge allegedly appeared only on receipts after payment, creating a mismatch between the advertised offering and the final transaction details. Customers reported discovering the surcharge post-purchase and feeling misled, which became the foundation of consumer complaints and the subsequent class action litigation.

The mechanics of the alleged surcharge issue unfolded across four points in the customer journey: menu display, ordering, point-of-sale processing, and receipt review. First, customers encountered menu boards and drive‑through screens that visually associated orange juice with advertised combo prices without clear, upfront surcharge disclosures. Second, when ordering, customers were presented with beverage choices that appeared co-equal, creating an impression that orange juice stood on the same footing as coffee or soda for the listed price. Third, when the order was rung up, an additional fee for orange juice was reportedly added by the system, often without contemporaneous verbal disclosure or a visible on‑screen breakdown that alerted customers before paying. Finally, only after payment did many customers see a line item on the receipt indicating an extra charge for orange juice, which prompted frustration and claims of deceptive pricing.

From the consumer's perspective, the core issue was transparency: a reasonable diner seeing orange juice pictured with a fixed‑price combo would expect that drink to be included at the posted price, absent a clear, conspicuous surcharge notice before purchase. The lack of upfront disclosure at the moment of decision—combined with reinforcement by imagery and menu structure—made the later discovery of an add‑on fee feel like a "gotcha," catalyzing allegations that the pricing practice was misleading or deceptive under consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs also argued that customers might have made different choices—such as selecting a different beverage, opting for a smaller size, or not ordering orange juice at all—had they known about the additional charge in advance.

The case—brought in federal court—alleges that McDonald's deceptively advertised breakfast combos by featuring orange juice in menu images while failing to clearly disclose an added surcharge when orange juice was selected, especially at the point when customers committed to pay. The complaint includes claims under consumer protection statutes, as well as common‑law theories such as misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment, and seeks both monetary relief and injunctive changes to McDonald's advertising and menu disclosures. Plaintiffs sought certification of a nationwide class along with state‑specific subclasses and asserted that the alleged practices were uniform and ongoing across franchise and corporate locations.

McDonald's has argued that its pricing practices are lawful and transparent, emphasizing that receipts disclosed the surcharge and that customers could review totals before completing transactions. The company has also suggested that menu boards complied with applicable regulations and that price differences for premium beverages are a common, reasonable component of quick‑service pricing models. In various court filings and public summaries, McDonald's has defended itself against claims that it should be held responsible for all franchise practices, while plaintiffs have pressed that the challenged conduct was sufficiently uniform and guided by corporate policy to impose liability.

According to case summaries, the litigation advanced through motions practice, including efforts to dismiss the claims and to narrow the scope of defendants and asserted causes of action. Reporting indicates that the court allowed several core claims to proceed against McDonald's USA, while McDonald's Corporation was dismissed at one stage, shaping the case posture going forward. Separate coverage has noted dates for hearings on dismissal motions and described subsequent amendments to the complaint, all underpinning a live dispute over the adequacy of disclosures and the legal sufficiency of the consumer protection and misrepresentation claims. Public summaries also reference negotiations and reports of potential settlement terms focused on monetary relief and improved clarity in menu board disclosures, subject to court approval and administrative implementation.

Class action settlements in consumer pricing cases generally involve three components: monetary relief for eligible customers, injunctive relief requiring clearer, more prominent disclosures, and notice and administration procedures that define who qualifies and how to claim. Monetary relief may be distributed as cash, vouchers, or credits, sometimes tiered by documented purchase history or capped to preserve funds for all claimants. Injunctive relief commonly requires standardized menu language, visual prominence for any surcharge notices, and point‑of‑sale prompts to ensure customers see and understand add‑on pricing before paying. Administration typically includes a dedicated website, claim form, deadlines, and audit protocols, with options for filing with or without receipts depending on the settlement's proof requirements.

How the Hidden Surcharge Worked in Practice

Menu Boards and Advertising

McDonald's displayed their breakfast combo meals prominently on menu boards within their restaurants and in their marketing materials. These menus and advertisements typically depicted orange juice as one of the drink options included with the combo meal, creating the impression that no extra charge would apply regardless of the drink choice.

Ordering Process

When customers visited a McDonald's location and ordered a breakfast combo meal, they were given the option to choose from a variety of drinks, including orange juice. The price displayed on the menu for the combo meal did not indicate any additional charges for choosing orange juice over other beverage options such as coffee or soda. This led customers to believe that all the listed drink options were included in the advertised combo price.

Actual Transaction and Surcharge

However, when the order was processed, the system would automatically add an extra charge for selecting orange juice, unbeknownst to the customer at the time of placing their order. The added cost did not appear on the screen at the point of sale nor was it verbally communicated by the staff in most instances, contributing to the lack of transparency.

Post-purchase Discovery

Customers typically discovered the hidden surcharge only after they had paid for their meals and received their receipts. The receipt would list the price of the breakfast combo and a separate line item indicating an additional charge for the orange juice. This led to feelings of frustration and deception among customers who realized they were being charged more than what they initially expected based on the advertised prices.

Customer Perception

This practice often left customers feeling misled, as many believed they had agreed to a total price when they placed their order, only to find out later that they had been charged more than anticipated. The lack of upfront disclosure about the additional cost for orange juice became the crux of the legal issue, prompting the class-action lawsuit against McDonald's.

Legal Implications

The crux of the plaintiffs' argument was that McDonald's failure to clearly disclose the surcharge for orange juice violated consumer protection laws by engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices. They sought compensation for the hidden charges they incurred and demanded changes to McDonald's menu boards to ensure transparency and accurate representation of prices.

McDonald's Initial Response

Initially, McDonald's defended its pricing practices, stating that the additional charge for orange juice was clearly listed on the receipts and that customers should have been aware of the surcharge. The company maintained that their menu boards were in compliance with advertising regulations and that the pricing was transparent.

Lawsuit Filed

A class action lawsuit was filed against McDonald's, alleging that the company's practice of adding a surcharge for orange juice violated consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs argued that McDonald's misleadingly advertised its breakfast combos with pictures of orange juice at a fixed price, creating a "hidden" surcharge. The lawsuit sought compensation for affected customers and changes to McDonald's advertising practices to ensure greater transparency.

The case, Meyers, et al. v. McDonald's Corp., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on December 19, 2023. The plaintiffs, led by Amber Meyers, John Michael Taferner, and Nasim Shariatpanahi, alleged that McDonald's engaged in deceptive advertising practices by promoting breakfast combos with pictures of orange juice, only to charge an additional fee for the juice that was not clearly disclosed on the menu boards.

Plaintiffs' Claims

The plaintiffs argued that McDonald's violated consumer protection laws by creating a "hidden" surcharge for orange juice. They claimed that the menu boards and drive-through screens did not adequately inform customers that orange juice was an additional cost. Instead, the surcharge was only identified as a line-item on receipts after the purchase was complete. The plaintiffs contended that this practice misled customers into believing orange juice was included in the advertised combo prices.

Defendants' Response

McDonald's responded to the lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' first amended complaint. The company argued that their pricing practices were lawful and transparent, and that the surcharge for orange juice was clearly indicated on the receipts. McDonald's also stated that customers had the opportunity to review their charges before completing their purchase.

Legal Proceedings

The court scheduled a hearing for McDonald's motion to dismiss on April 22, 2024. The plaintiffs, represented by Cameron Nazemi of CWN Inc., sought to hold McDonald's accountable for its pricing practices and demanded compensation for affected customers. They also requested changes to how McDonald's presents its breakfast menu to ensure greater transparency.

Settlement Agreement

After negotiations, McDonald's agreed to a settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit. The settlement includes monetary compensation for affected customers and a commitment to change how the company advertises its breakfast combos to ensure greater transparency regarding any additional charges for orange juice. McDonald's also agreed to update its menu boards to clearly disclose any surcharges for orange juice.

Class Action Details

The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all customers who purchased McDonald's breakfast combos with orange juice and were charged an additional fee that was not clearly disclosed on the menu boards. The lawsuit sought compensation for affected customers and changes to McDonald's advertising practices. The plaintiffs argued that McDonald's misleading advertising practices violated consumer protection laws and created unexpected costs for customers.

Eligibility to Make a Claim

Customers who purchased McDonald's breakfast combos with orange juice and were charged an additional fee that was not clearly disclosed on the menu boards are eligible to make a claim under the settlement. Eligible customers must have made their purchase within a specified timeframe, which is typically within the past two years.

Deadline to Submit a Claim

The deadline to submit a claim for the McDonald's orange juice settlement is [specific date]. Customers are encouraged to file their claims before this date to be considered for compensation. The deadline ensures that all eligible claims are processed in a timely manner.

Anticipated Payout

The anticipated payout for the McDonald's orange juice settlement is estimated to be around $5 million. This amount will be distributed among eligible claimants based on the number of valid claims received. Each claimant may receive a portion of the settlement amount, depending on the total number of claims and the extent of their damages.