Buffalo Wild Wings is free to keep calling its popular menu item “boneless wings” after a federal judge dismissed a consumer lawsuit challenging the name.
At the heart of the case was a simple but surprisingly heated question: Are boneless wings really wings—or just chicken nuggets in disguise?
In a detailed ruling issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Tharp made it clear that the terminology does not amount to consumer fraud. Most notably, A judge has ruled that Buffalo Wild Wings can continue marketing its chicken as “boneless.”
The Lawsuit: Nuggets or Wings?
The lawsuit was filed in March 2023 by Illinois resident Aimen Halim. He claimed the restaurant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by labeling the item “boneless wings” rather than calling them what he believed they truly are—chicken nuggets.
Halim argued that when he visited a Buffalo Wild Wings location in January 2023, he expected to receive actual chicken wings that had been deboned. Instead, he said he was served pieces of white meat chicken formed and fried—more similar to nuggets. He suggested the company should use alternative names such as “chicken poppers.”
Judge Tharp, however, was not convinced that reasonable consumers would be misled by the wording.
Judge Says Consumers Know What They’re Ordering
In his 10-page opinion, Judge Tharp acknowledged that boneless wings are “essentially chicken nuggets.” But he emphasized that the term “boneless wings” has been widely used in restaurants and grocery stores for more than two decades.
According to the judge, the phrase is a common, everyday menu term—not a technical description requiring detailed interpretation.
He wrote that boneless wings are not a specialty product that demands careful research to understand. Instead, the name has become part of standard restaurant language.
Although Halim was found to have legal standing—because he claimed economic injury—the court determined that he failed to show that reasonable customers are genuinely deceived by the label.
In the judge’s words, Halim did not present enough factual evidence to demonstrate that consumers believe they are getting deboned traditional wings when they order the item.
Reference to Ohio Supreme Court Ruling
Interestingly, Judge Tharp referenced a 2024 ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court to reinforce his reasoning.
That ruling addressed what diners can reasonably expect when reading menu descriptions. The Ohio court pointed out that someone ordering “boneless wings” would not reasonably assume the restaurant is guaranteeing the absence of bones in a literal, anatomical sense—just as a person ordering “chicken fingers” would not expect actual fingers.
The comparison highlighted how certain food terms are understood colloquially rather than literally.
Case Not Entirely Closed
While the judge dismissed the current complaint, the case is not entirely over. Halim has been granted permission to amend his lawsuit by March 20. If he can provide additional details showing that he personally experienced deception or that consumers are generally misled, the court may reconsider aspects of the case.
As of now, Buffalo Wild Wings has not issued a public comment regarding the ruling.
A Broader Food Labeling Debate
This case adds to a growing list of lawsuits challenging food labeling practices—from “all natural” claims to product names that stretch literal definitions.
However, in this instance, the court made it clear: menu language must be interpreted the way ordinary customers understand it, not through hyper-literal definitions.
For now, diners can continue ordering “boneless wings” at Buffalo Wild Wings without any changes to the menu—and without the restaurant needing to rebrand them as nuggets.
