Buffalo Wild Wings Wins Against Bizarre Lawsuit
A federal judge just slapped down a ridiculous consumer fraud lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings, ruling that “boneless wings” aren’t deceptive—proving common sense still prevails in American courts over frivolous litigation.
Story Highlights
- U.S. District Judge John Tharp Jr. dismissed the lawsuit on February 18, 2026, calling it “no meat on its bones.”
- “Boneless wings” are fanciful names for chicken breast, not literal wing meat, understood by reasonable consumers.
- Ruling protects restaurants from overreaching class-action suits that waste judicial resources.
- Plaintiff Aimen Halim has until March 20, 2026, to amend, but judge expressed deep skepticism.
- Precedent reinforces industry-standard menu terms like “buffalo wings” and “cauliflower wings.”
Court Dismisses Frivolous Lawsuit
U.S. District Judge John Tharp Jr. of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Aimen Halim’s consumer fraud lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings on February 18, 2026. Halim filed the suit in 2023 after buying “boneless wings” in January 2023, claiming the term deceived customers into expecting deboned wing meat. The 10-page ruling rejected claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, breach of warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Judge Tharp found no plausible deception for reasonable consumers, preserving business from meritless attacks.
Reasonable Consumer Standard Prevails
Judge Tharp applied the “reasonable consumer” standard, ruling that no ordinary person expects “boneless wings” to be reconstituted wing meat or a “Franken-wing.” Chickens have bony wings, making the term inherently fanciful. Menu context, listing boneless wings beside cauliflower wings, clarifies they aren’t from wing meat. The judge drew analogies to “buffalo wings,” which describe sauce, not source, and “chicken fingers,” not literal fingers per Ohio precedent. This pragmatic approach balances protection without stifling common food naming.
Buffalo Wild Wings defended with recipes showing consumers expect saucy chicken products. The chain argued Seventh Circuit precedent allows non-literal terms if not deceptive. Halim alleged economic injury but failed to show widespread confusion, dooming his nationwide class action bid.
Judicial Puns Underscore Ruling Strength
Judge Tharp’s opinion featured food puns, noting Halim “did not ‘drum’ up enough factual allegations.” He emphasized “boneless wings” have been industry standard for decades, akin to nuggets. While granting standing for alleged injury, the judge dismissed for lacking deception evidence. Halim must amend by March 20, 2026, but Tharp signaled doubts additional facts would help. This upholds limited government interference in private business labeling.
Industry-Wide Victory Against Overreach
The decision shields restaurants from lawsuits over descriptive nicknames, validating terms like “veggie burgers” or “fish sticks.” It limits class-action threats, curbing trial lawyers’ exploitation of picky consumers. Businesses gain latitude for marketing, focusing courts on real fraud, not wordplay. Conservatives cheer this win for free enterprise over nanny-state nitpicking that burdens job creators. Food industry terminology receives legal breathing room, prioritizing consumer sophistication.
Sources:
CBS News: Judge Says Lawsuit Over Buffalo Wild Wings Boneless Wings Has ‘No Meat on Its Bones’
Fox Business: Federal judge rules whether Buffalo Wild Wings can keep ‘boneless wings’ on menu