The Boneless Wings Lawsuit Against Buffalo Wild Wings Didn't Have Enough Meat

At some point, we've all probably made a crack about the incongruity of the term "boneless chicken wings," but most don't turn their mildly wry observations into a lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings. Yet that is exactly what one Chicago-based customer did three years ago. In 2023, Aimen Halim filed suit against the wing chain, alleging that the "boneless wings" designation misled diners into thinking they were ordering deboned chicken wings. The lawsuit also alleged that the plaintiff suffered financial injury, as he would not have spent money on them if he had known that they were actually like chicken nuggets.

However, on February 17, 2026, U.S. District Judge John Tharp dismissed Halim's claims, reinforcing the position of "boneless wings" on menus nationwide. Back when the lawsuit was filed, Buffalo Wild Wings disputed the claims, alleging that no reasonable person would think boneless wings were actually made from real chicken wings — and the judge seems to agree. Tharp ruled in favor of BWW, noting that consumers should be able to tell that boneless wings were not necessarily made from wing meat.

According to the judge, "wing" is a common catch-all term also used to refer to products like cauliflower "wings," therefore not only referring to actual chicken wings. Tharp also cited a similar 2024 Ohio court ruling that referenced chicken "fingers" as another clear marketing term that customers should understand does not have a literal meaning.

Beyond customers using basic reasoning to discern what boneless wings actually are, the outcome in favor of Buffalo Wild Wings also shows how difficult lawsuits around vague marketing terms can be. Part of the reasoning for the dismissal was simply that boneless wings as a term has been around for decades. Most already understand what they are, so a single instance of confusion is not a strong enough argument to the contrary.

Judge Tharp did leave an option open to the plaintiff, maintaining that the lawsuit could be back on if he could provide further evidence that he was financially harmed by the menu labeling confusion. However, some cold water was preemptively poured on that small spark, as the judge added that he was unlikely to find that reasoning persuasive since Buffalo Wild Wings boneless wings are cheaper than the traditional wings anyway. (This too should have served as a clear context clue that they are not real wings, as deboning would require significant extra effort.)

But the lighthearted tone of the judge's dismissal is really the star of this show. The official ruling is filled with chicken and meat puns, including asides like "his complaint has no meat on its bones" and "Halim did not 'drum' up enough factual allegations to state a claim." Not exactly the somber judicial prose of a man who thinks this complaint is too serious. Maybe the plaintiff can go drown his sorrows at Buffalo Wild Wings happy hour — this time with a side of regular wings.