Court Tosses 'Boneless Wings' Lawsuit Against BWW

Court Rejects Deceptive Advertising Claims

A U.S. federal judge has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings. The suit alleged that the restaurant chain's use of the term "boneless wings" constitutes deceptive advertising because the product is not made from de-boned chicken wings.

Judge John Tharp Jr. in Chicago ruled in favor of the restaurant, stating the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to proceed.

Lawsuit Background and Ruling

The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by plaintiff Aimen Halim, argued that consumers were misled into purchasing a product that is essentially a chicken nugget. The claim asserted that this practice violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

In his ruling, Judge Tharp reasoned that a reasonable consumer is not deceived by the product's name. He drew a parallel, noting that consumers do not believe "cauliflower wings" are made from actual chicken wings, thus applying the same logic to "boneless wings."

Implications for Food Marketing and Consumer Law

This case highlights the legal standard of the "reasonable consumer" in false advertising claims. The dismissal reinforces that product names commonly understood by the public may not be considered legally deceptive, even if not literally accurate. The outcome serves as a precedent for similar consumer protection lawsuits within the food and beverage industry.

While a victory for Buffalo Wild Wings, the case underscores the increasing scrutiny on food marketing and product labeling.

Summary and Next Steps

The court has granted the motion to dismiss the case, concluding the plaintiff's argument was insufficient. However, the legal matter is not definitively closed. The judge has given the plaintiff until March 20 to amend the lawsuit and present new facts that could potentially allow the case to move forward.

FAQ

Q: Why was the lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings dismissed?
A: The judge ruled that a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into believing "boneless wings" are made from de-boned wing meat, finding the claim had no merit.

Q: What was the plaintiff's core argument?
A: The plaintiff argued that the term "boneless wings" is false advertising because the product is essentially made of chicken breast meat, similar to a nugget, not a de-boned wing.

Q: Is the case completely over?
A: Not necessarily. The plaintiff has been granted an opportunity to amend the lawsuit with additional facts by a March 20 deadline.

Source: Reuters via Investing.com