Are Boneless Wings Actually Wings? An Illinois Federal Judge Has Made The Call

It's the great American debate, now in the courtroom.

Sure we could be worried about all kinds of things this legislative session, like Illinois' new push to adopt one of America's strictest DUI laws. But a federal judge in Illinois has made a landmark ruling, sure to reopen the greatest fried debate in history.

In a 10-page ruling, U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr., made his ruling in a lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings.

The Boneless Lawsuit

For background: An Illinois man filed a lawsuit after a 2023 visit to Buffalo Wild Wings, claiming deception by the company because their boneless wings were listed in the 'Wings' section of their menu. Now, the man asked for punitive damages. The lawsuit read in part:

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other consumers, the Products are not wings at all, but instead, slices of chicken breast meat deep-fried like wings. Indeed, the Products are more akin, in composition, to a chicken nugget rather than a chicken wing.

The chicken-fried deception.

The Anti-Nugget Defense

In response, Buffalo Wild Wings said in court filings that the Seventh Circuit had recognized "literally false statements are not deceptive" and they also pointed out another wing approach: the cauliflower.

Judge Rules On "Franken-Wing"

So then are boneless wings just nuggets? Can cauliflowers have wings? Did a U.S. judge really use the term 'Franken-wing' in legal proceedings?

Here's what Judge Tharp wrote:

 

Cauliflower wings are sold at BWW, under the 'wing' section of the menu, and are presented as an alternative to chicken wings. If Halim is right, reasonable consumers should think that cauliflower wings are made (at least in part) from wing meat. They don't, though. 'Boneless wing' is also clearly a fanciful name, because chickens do have wings, and those wings have bones.

He made the argument that if a customer orders 'boneless wings', they expect wings without bones to be delivered to the table, so that's not deceptive:

A reasonable consumer would not think that BWW's boneless wings were truly deboned chicken wings, reconstituted into some sort of Franken-wing...Halim sued BWW over his confusion, but his complaint has no meat on its bones...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'.

Oh no not Franken-wing.

So no, if you have a stick up your butt about bone-in wings being the only ~true~ chicken wings, that's now legally incorrect. 'Boneless wings' can still be marketed as wings.

That's the only important thing you need to remember today.