‘No meat on its bones’: Federal judge dismisses lawsuit over Buffalo Wild Wings’ boneless wings

Is a boneless chicken wing just a nugget? 

Can a cauliflower have wings? 

Can parts of a chicken be “reconstituted into some sort of Franken-wing?”

Those are some of the big questions that a federal judge in Illinois answered on Tuesday, concluding that boneless chicken wings can be marketed as wings. 

In a 10-page ruling, U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. sided with Buffalo Wild Wings in a lawsuit filed by a customer claiming he had been deceived by the brand’s boneless chicken wings. 

“Words can have multiple meanings–indeed, the term ‘buffalo wing’ refers to the type of sauce on the wing, rather than indicating it is made of buffalo meat,” Tharp wrote. 

The lawsuit stemmed from an Illinois man’s 2023 visit to his local Buffalo Wild Wings. Aimen Halim said he was deceived by the company, which marketed its boneless chicken wings in the “wings” section of their menu. 

“Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other consumers, the Products are not wings at all, but instead, slices of chicken breast meat deep-fried like wings. Indeed, the Products are more akin, in composition, to a chicken nugget rather than a chicken wing,” Halim argued in the lawsuit, asking for punitive damages and to disgorge the company’s profits. 

Buffalo Wild Wings fought back against the claims, arguing in court filings that the Seventh Circuit had recognized that many “literally false statements are not deceptive.” The company also pointed to another wing alternative — the cauliflower. 

The judge also chewed over that argument as well.

“Cauliflower wings are sold at BWW, under the ‘wing’ section of the menu, and are presented as an alternative to chicken wings. If Halim is right, reasonable consumers should think that cauliflower wings are made (at least in part) from wing meat. They don’t, though,” Tharp wrote. “‘Boneless wing’ is also clearly a fanciful name, because chickens do have wings, and those wings have bones.” 

The judge also pushed back on the lawsuit’s claim that customers would expect anything else to arrive at their table if they order boneless wings. 

“A reasonable consumer would not think that BWW’s boneless wings were truly deboned chicken wings, reconstituted into some sort of Franken-wing,” he wrote. 

“Halim sued BWW over his confusion, but his complaint has no meat on its bones,” the judge concluded, writing later in his opinion that Halim “did not ‘drum’ up enough factual allegations to state a claim.”

“Though he has standing to bring the claim because he plausibly alleged economic injury, he does not plausibly allege that reasonable consumers are fooled by BWW’s use of the term ‘boneless wings,” he wrote. 

ABC News has reached out to both Buffalo Wild Wings and Halim’s attorneys for reaction to the judge’s ruling.