A federal judge has delivered a blunt ruling in a quirky but closely watched consumer lawsuit: so-called “boneless wings” do not actually have to come from chicken wings.

In a decision issued in the Northern District of Illinois, Judge John Tharp Jr. rejected a lawsuit brought by Illinois resident Aimen Halim, who accused Buffalo Wild Wings of misleading customers by selling chicken breast pieces labeled as boneless wings. The judge dismissed the claim, concluding that the complaint lacked substance, writing that it had “no meat on its bones.”

The Core of the Lawsuit

Halim filed the lawsuit in 2023, arguing that Buffalo Wild Wings deceived customers into believing its boneless wings were real chicken wings with the bones removed. He sought roughly $10 million in damages and pushed for the company to rename the product to something more accurate, such as “chicken poppers.”

According to Halim, he would not have purchased the product had he known it was made from chicken breast rather than wing meat. He claimed the labeling violated Illinois consumer fraud laws and allowed the company to profit unfairly.

But the court was not convinced.

Judge Tharp ruled that a reasonable consumer would understand that “boneless wings” are not literally deboned wings reconstructed into wing form. Instead, he said, most people recognize the product for what it is: breaded chicken breast pieces, commonly compared to chicken nuggets.

In the ruling, the judge noted that language can carry multiple meanings and does not always require literal interpretation.

No Proof of Real Harm

A key factor in the decision was the plaintiff’s inability to demonstrate measurable harm. Buffalo Wild Wings argued successfully that Halim did not show he suffered a concrete injury from purchasing or eating the product.

Without clear financial loss or deception rising to a legal threshold, the claim could not proceed. The judge also denied Halim’s request to turn the case into a class-action lawsuit, preventing broader legal exposure for the restaurant chain.

Still, Halim was given an opportunity to amend his complaint before a deadline next month. Even so, Judge Tharp expressed skepticism, writing that it is “difficult to imagine” how additional facts would prove the company engaged in deceptive practices simply by using the term boneless wings.

The Economics Behind the Menu

The dispute also highlights a practical reality in the food industry. Chicken wings typically cost more than chicken breast meat, largely because wings are in higher demand and supply is limited. Meanwhile, larger modern chickens produce more breast meat, making it cheaper and more widely available for processed products.

Buffalo Wild Wings’ menu reflects this distinction. The chain offers both traditional bone-in wings and boneless wings, as well as alternative options such as cauliflower wings. The company describes its boneless wings as “juicy all-white chicken, lightly breaded, handspun in choice of sauce or dry rub.”

A Pattern of Similar Lawsuits

This was not Halim’s first attempt at challenging product wording. He previously filed lawsuits against the makers of Hefty recycling bags and Kind granola bars over alleged deceptive labeling. Those cases were also unsuccessful.

Legal experts say the ruling reinforces a broader trend in consumer litigation: courts often apply a “reasonable consumer” standard rather than a literal interpretation of product names. Unless a label clearly misleads in a material way, judges are reluctant to treat marketing language as fraud.