Sports bar/fast casual restaurant chain Buffalo Wild Wings has been targeted by a new class action over one of its popular menu items, "boneless wings," crying foul over alleged false advertising under the premise that they aren't really wings, just sauced over chicken nugget wanna-bes.
A federal judge has dismissed the suit, for now, saying plaintiffs failed to properly identify the parties involved. The plaintiffs have publicly indicated their intent to hatch a new complaint and try again.
Plaintiff Aimen Halim, on behalf of himself and others, filed a new class action lawsuit in Chicago Federal Court against Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and its parent company, Inspire Brands, Inc., on March 10. The suit alleged that Buffalo Wild Wings and Inspire Brands engaged in "false and deceptive marketing and advertising”, a violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) with regard to their popular menu item, known as "boneless wings."
Founded in 1982, Buffalo Wild Wings rapidly gained popularity early on as a top spot for all-things chicken wings and sauces. Garnering notoriety they leveraged their stake in the growing wings industry, using their unique sauces and lively gaming and sporting event viewing options to draw patrons in,
Last January, the plaintiff, Aimen Halim said he purchased what he believed to be a legitimate deboned chicken wing dressed in a sauce of his choosing. He went on in court documents to accuse Buffalo Wild Wings of enticing him to buy what he earnestly believed to be deboned chicken wings which were, to his dismay, nothing more than all-white meat boneless chicken breast, shaped to resemble a chicken wing and sauced with a flavor of his choosing.
Halim vehemently asserts that this is a clear-cut violation of ICFA, claiming Buffalo Wild Wings lured him to purchase the item under false pretenses as they did not identify the actual item as not wings. Halim feels he along with countless thousands of patrons might not have purchased the items had the truth of their origin been disclosed.
He believes that a reasonable consumer would read the menu and conclude the same, that "...the Products are chicken wings that have simply been deboned, and as such, are comprised of entirely chicken wing meat.”
The suit contends that this "clear-cut case of false advertising should not be permitted, as consumers should be able to rely on the plain meaning of a product’s name and receive what they are promised...” The suit goes on to assert that in light of the value consumers place on wings, B-Dubs has no valid reason to defraud or deceive consumers other than to promote a cheaper product alongside actual chicken wings.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge John Tharp Jr. dismissed the complaint on procedural grounds, and gave Halim's legal team until March 27 to amend the complaint.
In their first version of the complaint, the plaintiffs demanded a trial by jury, seeking actual and punitive damages, plus court costs and legal fees.
Halim is represented by attorneys Ruhandy Glezakos and Benjamin Heikali, of Treehouse Law, of Los Angeles.
For its part, Buffalo Wild Wings appeared to respond to the lawsuit with a bit of humor.
On Twitter, their official account posted earlier this week:
“It’s true. Our boneless wings are all white meat chicken. Our hamburgers contain no ham. Our buffalo wings are 0% buffalo.”