Judge dismisses lawsuit over Buffalo Wild Wings' 'boneless wings'

The court ruled that the term 'boneless wings' is a common industry term and does not amount to false advertising.

Published on Feb. 21, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

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

Why it matters

This ruling sets an important precedent for the restaurant industry, affirming that the term 'boneless wings' does not constitute deceptive marketing even though the product is essentially chicken nuggets. The case highlights ongoing debates around menu transparency and consumer expectations.

The details

The lawsuit was filed by a Chicago man named Aimen Halim, who argued that Buffalo Wild Wings should call the product something different, like 'chicken poppers,' since the 'boneless wings' are just slices of chicken breast meat that are deep-fried. Halim claimed he suffered 'financial injury' after learning how the boneless wings were made. However, the judge ruled that the product concept was not new, as Buffalo Wild Wings had been selling boneless wings since 2003, and that a 'reasonable consumer' would not be misled into thinking the items were truly deboned chicken wings.

  • The lawsuit was filed in January 2023 shortly after the plaintiff visited the 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 term 'boneless wings' on the menu amounted to false advertising.

Judge John Tharp

The federal judge in Illinois 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.'”

— Judge John Tharp, US District Judge (nypost.com)

“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.”

— Judge John Tharp, US District Judge (nypost.com)

“A diner reading 'boneless wings' on a menu would no more believe that the restaurant was warranting the absence of bones in the items than believe that the items were made from chicken wings, just as a person eating 'chicken fingers' would know that he had not been served fingers.”

— Ohio Supreme Court (nypost.com)

What’s next

The court is allowing the plaintiff, Aimen Halim, to submit an amended complaint by March 20, 2026, although the judge noted that it 'is difficult to imagine' that Halim can provide additional facts that would demonstrate Buffalo Wild Wings is committing deceptive advertising.

The takeaway

This ruling affirms that the term 'boneless wings' is an established industry term, and that restaurants are not required to provide more specific descriptions of menu items as long as the terminology is not outright deceptive. The case highlights the ongoing debate around menu transparency and consumer expectations in the restaurant industry.