Aiman Halim, a customer of Buffalo Wild Wings, filed a lawsuit claiming the restaurant's "boneless wings" misrepresented the product as actual wings, while they are primarily made up of chicken breast pieces identical to chicken nuggets. He argued that this was a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, seeking nearly $10 million in damages for being misled. However, the judge dismissed the claims, stating that Halim did not sufficiently demonstrate that reasonable consumers would be deceived by the term 'boneless wings'.

Judge John Tharp determined that the name "boneless wings" is not misleading since it is commonly used in the industry to describe chicken breast pieces that are served in a wing-style format. The ruling emphasized the argument's lack of merit, highlighting that the term has not deceived consumers in the past and continues to be widely accepted in restaurant menus. The judge's humorous phrasing of the verdict—saying the claim had "no meat on its bones"—underscored the frivolity of the lawsuit.

This case not only reflects on consumer perception and marketing lexicon but may also set a precedent for how food products are described in the future. Companies that use creative names for their products could see similar challenges in court regarding the interpretation of those terms and their potential to mislead consumers. The ruling reassures business owners and influencers in the food industry regarding the legal boundaries of product naming conventions, reinforcing the notion that common usage in marketing does not automatically constitute deceptive practices.