The plaintiff argued that the name was false advertising
-
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Buffalo Wild Wings falsely advertised its boneless wings.
-
The court ruled that reasonable consumers understand boneless wings to be a style of preparation, not a literal claim about deboned chicken wings.
-
The decision reinforces prior rulings that common food terms are judged by everyday understanding, not strict literal interpretation.
A federal judge has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing Buffalo Wild Wings of false advertising over its popular boneless wings, ruling that the menu items name would not mislead a reasonable consumer.
In a decision issued this week, U.S. District Judge John Tharp concluded that the term boneless wings describes a cooking style rather than a guarantee that the product is derived from a deboned chicken wing. The plaintiff had argued that the menu item made from breaded, sauced chunks of chicken breast meat was misleading because it does not consist of actual chicken wings with bones removed.
No reasonable consumer would believe that boneless wings are wings that have simply had their bones extracted, the judge wrote in the opinion. Instead, the court said, the phrase has become widely understood in American dining culture to refer to bite-sized pieces of white meat chicken prepared in the style of traditional wings.
The complaint
The lawsuit, filed in 2025, claimed that Buffalo Wild Wings marketing and menu descriptions deceived customers into thinking they were ordering deboned wings rather than what the complaint characterized as chicken nuggets. The plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief on behalf of similarly situated customers nationwide.
Attorneys for Buffalo Wild Wings countered that the term boneless wings has been used for decades across the restaurant industry and is commonly understood to distinguish the product from traditional bone-in wings. They argued that the claim relied on an overly literal reading of the menu.
The court agreed with the restaurant chain, comparing the naming dispute to other food items whose names do not strictly describe their ingredients or form. The opinion referenced examples such as chicken fingers and hamburgers, noting that consumers do not expect those products to contain fingers or ham.
Reasonable consumer standard
Legal analysts say the ruling fits within a broader trend of courts dismissing consumer protection lawsuits that hinge on hyper-literal interpretations of food labeling.
Some legal analysts have noted that judges generally apply a reasonable consumer standard in these types of lawsuits. They pose the question of whether an ordinary consumer would actually be misled, not whether a term could be dissected into a technically inaccurate meaning.
Buffalo Wild Wings, headquartered in Atlanta and owned by Inspire Brands, welcomed the decision. In a statement, the company said it was pleased the court recognized that its menu descriptions are clear and consistent with industry norms.
Our guests understand that boneless wings are made from premium white meat chicken and prepared in the flavor styles they love, the statement said.
Posted: 2026-02-18 12:08:07


















