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

Judge rules 'boneless wing' is a 'fanciful' name, not a misleading description of the product.

Published on Feb. 25, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Buffalo Wild Wings misled customers by marketing its 'boneless wings,' which are made from chicken breast meat rather than meat from actual chicken wings. The judge ruled that 'boneless wing' is a 'fanciful' name describing a style of preparation, not a specific body part of the chicken.

Why it matters

This ruling sets an important precedent around the use of 'fanciful' names in food marketing, which are common practice in the industry. It suggests that consumers understand these terms as descriptive rather than literal, and that companies are not necessarily obligated to use the most technically accurate terminology.

The details

Aimen Halim sued Buffalo Wild Wings, claiming the company violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by misleading customers about the contents of its 'boneless wings.' However, U.S. District Judge John Tharp dismissed the case, stating that 'boneless wing' is clearly a marketing term, not a literal description. The judge noted that by Halim's logic, 'cauliflower wings' should also be misleading, which is clearly not the case.

  • The lawsuit was filed in 2026.

The players

Aimen Halim

The plaintiff who filed the lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings, claiming the company misled customers about the contents of its 'boneless wings.'

U.S. District Judge John Tharp

The federal judge who dismissed Halim's lawsuit, ruling that 'boneless wing' is a 'fanciful' name, not a misleading description.

Buffalo Wild Wings

The restaurant chain that was sued for marketing its 'boneless wings,' which are made from chicken breast meat rather than actual wing meat.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

The takeaway

This ruling highlights the common practice of using 'fanciful' names in food marketing, which consumers generally understand as descriptive rather than literal. It suggests that companies are not necessarily obligated to use the most technically accurate terminology, as long as they are not actively misleading customers.