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 that claimed Buffalo Wild Wings' use of the term 'boneless wings' on its menu was false advertising. The judge ruled that 'boneless wings' is a common industry term that reasonable consumers would understand does not refer to traditional chicken wings, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate economic injury or that consumers were deceived by the menu item's name.

Why it matters

This ruling sets an important precedent for how restaurants can market and label menu items, particularly in cases where the product name may not perfectly align with the literal composition of the food. The judge's decision suggests courts will take a practical, common-sense approach to evaluating such claims rather than requiring strict literal accuracy in menu 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 that the company should call them something different like 'chicken poppers.' However, the judge ruled that Halim failed to provide enough factual evidence to show that reasonable consumers would be deceived by the term 'boneless wings,' noting that it has been a common industry term for over two decades.

  • On January 2023, Halim visited a Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant and purchased the 'boneless wings' menu item.
  • In February 2023, Halim filed a lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings, accusing the company of false advertising.
  • On February 18, 2026, the federal judge dismissed Halim's lawsuit, ruling that 'boneless wings' is a commonly understood term in the industry.

The players

Aimen Halim

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

Judge John Tharp

The U.S. District Judge in Illinois who dismissed Halim's lawsuit, ruling that 'boneless wings' is a common industry term that does not amount to false advertising.

Buffalo Wild Wings

The sports bar chain that was sued by Halim for continuing to use the term 'boneless wings' on its menu.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“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, U.S. District Judge

“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, U.S. District Judge

What’s next

The judge is allowing Halim to submit an amended complaint by March 20, 2026, though the judge noted it would be "difficult to imagine" Halim could provide additional facts to demonstrate Buffalo Wild Wings is engaging in deceptive advertising.

The takeaway

This ruling suggests courts will take a practical, common-sense approach to evaluating claims of false advertising on restaurant menus, rather than requiring strict literal accuracy in product descriptions. As long as a term is widely understood in the industry, restaurants may have leeway to use it even if the product does not perfectly match the literal meaning of the name.