Someone Is Suing Buffalo Wild Wings, Claiming Its Boneless Wings, Are, in Fact, Not Wings

Buffalo Wild Wings responded by saying its "hamburgers contain no ham and its "buffalo wings are 0% buffalo," too.

On Tuesday, a federal judge dismissed an Illinois man’s lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings, one that accused the restaurant chain of selling chicken breast meat as “boneless wings.” According to Law & Crime, U.S. District Judge John Tharp Jr. tossed Aimen Halim’s complaint on “procedural grounds,” but Halim’s attorney said they would be refiling the suit and giving it another go. 

 Man sues Buffalo Wild Wings, claiming its ‘boneless wings’ are actually chicken nuggets


This all started last week, when Halim sued Buffalo Wild Wings for the “false and deceptive marketing and advertising” of boneless wings as, well, being boneless wings. “Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other consumers, the Products are not wings at all, but instead, slices of chicken breast meat deep-fried like wings,” the complaint reads. “Indeed, the Products are more akin, in composition, to a chicken nugget rather than a chicken wing.” 

In the legal filing, Halim says that if he had known that boneless wings weren’t actual chicken wings, he “would have paid less for them or would not have purchased them at all.” As a result, he “suffered a financial injury” when he ordered boneless wings in January at a Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant in the Chicago suburbs. “Plaintiff will be unable to rely with confidence on Defendants’ advertising of the Products in the future,” the complaint sighs. 

The court documents suggest that Buffalo Wild Wings should've either let consumers know that boneless wings are made of 100% whole white breast meat — which is what Domino's Pizza does for its "Boneless Chicken" offerings — or that it should've used an alternate name for those items. Papa Johns, the filing noted, uses the term "Chicken Poppers" instead of "boneless"...anything. 

Halim is far from the first person to call out "boneless wings" as a still-edible impossibility. Associated Press writer Ted Anthony described them as a "culinary lie" in a piece published just before this year's Super Bowl, equating them with other "gentle imposters" like baby-cut carrots or the surimi that cosplays as shellfish in some California rolls. (And who could forget Ander Christensen, the Nebraska man who begged the Lincoln City Council to ban the "boneless" name, suggesting that they could be referred to as "Buffalo-style chicken tenders, wet tenders, saucy nugs, or trash" instead.) 

This isn't the plaintiff's first class-action suit against a household-brand name. Halim has also sued KIND over the claim that its granola bars are high in fiber, Tom's of Maine for labeling its Wicked Fresh! Mouthwash as "natural," and Reynolds Consumer Products over the recyclability of its Hefty-brand trash bags. 

In a tweet posted on Monday, Buffalo Wild Wings seemed to allude to the legal challenge. “It’s true,” it wrote. “Our boneless wings are all white meat chicken. Our hamburgers contain no ham. Our buffalo wings are 0% buffalo.” 

Judge Tharp has given Halim and his attorneys until Monday, March 27 to refile the lawsuit. 

Was this page helpful?
Related Articles