Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Buffalo Wild Wings' 'Boneless Wings'

The court ruled that 'boneless wings' is a common term and reasonable consumers would not be deceived by the menu item.

Published on Feb. 20, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A federal judge in Illinois has dismissed a lawsuit that claimed Buffalo Wild Wings was falsely advertising its 'boneless wings' menu item. The judge ruled that 'boneless wings' is a common term that has existed for over two decades, and a 'reasonable consumer' would not believe the wings were truly deboned chicken wings.

Why it matters

This ruling sets a precedent that restaurants can continue to use the term 'boneless wings' without fear of false advertising lawsuits, as long as the product is clearly understood by consumers. It highlights the challenges businesses face in satisfying customer expectations around menu item descriptions.

The details

The lawsuit was filed by a Chicago man named Aimen Halim, who argued that Buffalo Wild Wings' 'boneless wings' are essentially just chicken nuggets and should be labeled as such. However, the judge ruled that Halim did not provide enough factual evidence to show that reasonable consumers are 'fooled' by the term 'boneless wings.' The judge noted that Buffalo Wild Wings has used this term since 2003, and it is a common industry term, not a niche product requiring extensive research by consumers.

  • The lawsuit was filed in January 2023 shortly after Halim visited a Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant.
  • The judge issued the 10-page ruling dismissing the lawsuit on February 18, 2026.

The players

Aimen Halim

A Chicago man who filed a lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings, claiming the 'boneless wings' menu item was false advertising.

U.S. District Judge John Tharp

The federal judge who issued the ruling dismissing Halim's lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings.

Buffalo Wild Wings

The sports bar chain that was sued over its use of the term 'boneless wings' on its menu.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Though he has standing to bring the claim because he plausibly alleged economic injury, he does not plausibly allege that reasonable consumers are fooled by BWW's use of the term 'boneless wings.'”

— U.S. District Judge John Tharp (timebulletin.us)

“'Boneless wings are not a niche product for which a consumer would need to do extensive research to figure out the truth. Instead, 'boneless wings' is a common term that has existed for over two decades.'”

— U.S. District Judge John Tharp (timebulletin.us)

What’s next

The court is allowing Halim to submit an amended complaint by March 20, although the judge noted that it 'is difficult to imagine' that he can provide additional facts that would demonstrate Buffalo Wild Wings is committing deceptive advertising.

The takeaway

This ruling suggests that as long as a menu item description is a commonly used industry term, restaurants can continue to use it without fear of false advertising lawsuits, even if the item does not perfectly match consumer expectations. It highlights the challenges businesses face in balancing transparency and customer satisfaction around menu labeling.