Judge rules on the definition of a chicken wing in decision that could change fast food menus everywhere
Here’s the verdict: ‘Chicken wings’ don’t actually have to be chicken wings.
Aimen Halim, a Buffalo Wild Wings customer from Illinois, has a bone to pick with the casual dining chain.
Halim, 39, sued the fast food chain in 2023 for causing him to believe that boneless chicken wings actually came from a chicken wing. He also requested $10 million in damages.
On Thursday, Judge John Tharp Jr. of the Northern District of Illinois rebutted Halim’s claim.
‘A reasonable consumer wouldn’t think that BWW’s boneless wings are really deboned chicken wings and have been reconstituted into some kind of Franken wing,’ Tharp said.
Tharp ruled that Georgia-based Buffalo Wild Wings had the right to continue offering boneless wings, even though that flavor was actually just a piece of chicken.
Halim’s claim was that if he had known that the food was not made with chicken wings, he would not have purchased it and this would cause financial harm to him.
In his 10-page opinion, he claimed the company violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and unjustly enriched him.
A Buffalo Wild Wings customer from Illinois has a bone to pick at the casual dining chain
The customer sued Buffalo Wild Wings in 2023 for misleading the company into believing that its boneless chicken wings actually came from a chicken wing.
Join the discussion
Should fast food chains be allowed to use creative names for dishes that are not what they appear to be?
The customer asked Tharp to rule that Buffalo Wild Wings should change the name of its wings to something like ‘chicken popper,’ but the judge wouldn’t bite.
‘Words can have more than one meaning,’ Tharp said in the 10-page opinion.
Online, Buffalo Wild Wings describes its Boneless Wings as ‘juicy, all-white chicken, lightly breaded, hand-spun with your choice of sauce or dry rub.’
The restaurant also offers Bone-In Wings and Cauliflower Wings, which are clearly not made from cauliflower wings.
Buffalo Wild Wings argued that Halim did not prove that he suffered a tangible injury by consuming the boneless wings.
Tharp said Halim has until next month to fix his case. But the judge added: ‘It is difficult to imagine that Halim could provide additional facts about his own experience that would show that BWW had committed a deceptive act by calling its nuggets ‘boneless wings’.’
Halim sued the restaurant chain months after eating the ‘wings’ and this is not the first case he has filed against big brands.
The plaintiff previously sued the manufacturers of Hefty recycling bags and KIND granola for deceptive statements and lost in court.
