In a quirky legal case, an Illinois judge dismissed a lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings. The customer, Aimen Halim, claimed that the phrase “boneless wings” was misleading because it actually describes chicken breast meat, not traditional wing meat. He argued that if he had known this, he wouldn’t have ordered them.
On March 14, 2023, Judge John Tharp Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that Halim’s claims lacked solid evidence. The judge contended that “boneless wings” is simply a playful term that customers generally understand. He likened it to “buffalo wings,” which refers to the sauce, not the animal.
Tharp emphasized that a reasonable consumer would not think “boneless wings” meant real deboned chicken wings. He also mentioned items like cauliflower wings sold at the same restaurant, explaining that no one believes those are made from wing meat either.
This concept of food naming has gained traction lately. Studies show that consumers are more aware of food labeling and advertising practices than ever before. In fact, about 60% of people pay close attention to food descriptions, according to a recent survey by the Food Marketing Institute.
Buffalo Wild Wings defended their terminology, stating that context makes it clear what customers are buying. “Boneless wings” has been a common phrase for over 20 years, and many know it refers to a chicken breast preparation.
The case sparks an interesting conversation about food terminology. It raises questions about how we interpret names and what we expect when dining out.
While Halim has until March 20 to make any changes to his complaint, the ruling seems to reflect a broader understanding among consumers about how names can have different meanings.
For more insights into food labeling, you can refer to the Food Marketing Institute.
Source link
Lawsuit, Illinois, Food & Drink, Class-Action Lawsuit
