Judge Rules Buffalo Wild Wings’ “Boneless Wings” Lawsuit Lacks Merit

**Excerpt:** An Illinois judge dismissed a lawsuit claiming Buffalo Wild Wings’ “boneless wings” were misleading, stating the term lacks deception.

Key Points:

– A customer sued Buffalo Wild Wings claiming “boneless wings” is misleading as it contains chicken breast meat.
– The judge ruled the term “boneless wings” is not deceptive, describing it as a “fanciful name.”
– The ruling highlighted that common terms like “boneless wings” have been in use for over two decades.
– The plaintiff argued he would have paid less had he known the product contained chicken breast.
– The judge allowed the plaintiff until March 20 to file an amended complaint.

Lawsuit Overview

An Illinois judge has ruled against a lawsuit filed by a Buffalo Wild Wings customer, stating that the claim regarding the restaurant’s “boneless wings” has “no meat on its bones.” The lawsuit, initiated by Aimen Halim in 2023, alleged that the term “boneless wings” is misleading because the product contains chicken breast meat rather than actual deboned wings.

Details of the Case

Halim ordered the “boneless wings” at an Illinois location in January 2023. He claimed that he expected to receive deboned chicken wings and argued that had he known the product was made from breast meat, he would have either refrained from purchasing it or paid a lower price.

Court’s Ruling

Judge John Tharp Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case, stating that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient facts to support his claims. The judge noted that “boneless wings” is a commonly accepted term and not inherently deceptive. He emphasized that reasonable consumers would not interpret the term as implying the product is made from actual wings.

Tharp used the example of “buffalo wings,” which refers to the sauce rather than the meat source, to illustrate that terms in food labeling can have multiple meanings. He also compared “boneless wings” to “cauliflower wings,” suggesting that consumers understand these terms in context.

Conclusion

In his ruling, Judge Tharp remarked that the term “boneless wings” has been in common usage for over twenty years, indicating that customers are familiar with it. Buffalo Wild Wings also maintained that the term is not misleading, citing context cues that clarify the product’s nature. The judge has given Halim until March 20 to submit an amended complaint if desired.