Buffalo Wild Wings Wins Dismissal of False Advertising Suit Over ‘Boneless Wings’
A federal judge in Illinois has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Buffalo Wild Wings of misleading customers by selling chicken breast pieces as “boneless wings,” ruling that the name would not deceive an ordinary diner.
In a 10-page opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr. of the Northern District of Illinois rejected claims brought by Illinois resident Aimen Halim. Halim sued in 2023 after ordering the item at an Illinois location in January of that year. He alleged that he expected deboned wing meat but instead received pieces made from chicken breast. He sought up to $10 million in damages and asked the court to require changes to the company’s marketing.
Buffalo Wild Wings operates hundreds of locations nationwide and is known for its chicken wing menu and sports-focused dining. The challenged item is sold across its restaurants under the label “boneless wings.”
Halim argued in court filings that the product is “more akin, in composition, to a chicken nugget rather than a chicken wing.” He claimed he would not have purchased the item, or would have paid less, had he known it was not made from wing portions.
Judge Tharp concluded that the complaint did not state a viable claim under consumer protection law. The court found that alleging he paid for a product he believed was misrepresented was enough to establish standing, the threshold requirement to bring a case in federal court. But the judge held that the allegations did not plausibly show that typical customers are misled by the name.
When courts evaluate advertising disputes, they apply what is known as the reasonable consumer standard. The focus is not on whether one buyer misunderstood a label. Judges ask whether an average customer would likely be deceived. When a term has an established meaning in everyday language, courts generally do not treat it as misleading.
Judge Tharp wrote that “boneless wings” has been used throughout the restaurant industry for more than two decades to describe chicken breast pieces prepared in the style of traditional wings. He characterized the phrase as common shorthand rather than a literal reference to a specific cut of meat. The opinion also pointed to menu items such as cauliflower wings as further evidence that diners do not interpret the word “wings” as a precise anatomical description.
“Words can have multiple meanings,” the judge wrote, noting that “buffalo wing” refers to a style of sauce rather than meat from a buffalo. He concluded that no reasonable diner would believe the product consists of deboned wing meat reconstructed into its original form.
The ruling came at the motion to dismiss stage. At that early phase, a court assumes the facts described in the complaint are true and asks whether the law would allow recovery. Dismissing for failure to state a claim means the allegations, even if accepted as true, do not amount to unlawful conduct.
Similar lawsuits nationwide have challenged food labels that imply specific ingredients or preparation methods. Courts often resolve those disputes by examining how an ordinary buyer would interpret the language in context rather than in a strictly literal sense.
Buffalo Wild Wings argued, according to the opinion, that common usage and menu context make clear the product is not made from wing meat. The court agreed that those factors undercut the claim of deception.
Judge Tharp dismissed the complaint but granted Halim leave to amend. He has until March 20 to file a revised complaint if he can provide additional factual support.
