April 2023 | Volume 14, Issue 9

Read the full article from USA News.

According to the article, when a restaurant fries up a chunk of chicken breast, covers it in Buffalo sauce, and calls it a wing, is it a harmless little issue of semantics, or consumer fraud?

A new federal lawsuit makes no bones about it: The suit alleges the practice is fraud and companies like Buffalo Wild Wings are duping customers by selling chicken wings that are not in fact wings. 

Aimen Halim of Chicago recently filed a lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings, saying he went into the Buffalo Wild Wings location in Mount Prospect, Illinois back in January and ordered "boneless wings."

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

The Los Angeles lawyers who filed the lawsuit are seeking other consumers who also have eaten boneless wings at one of the chain's hundreds of locations across the nation. 

"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," according to the lawsuit.

Buffalo Wild Wings did not directly comment on the lawsuit but pointed to a cheeky tweet sent out earlier in the day that poked fun at the litigation. 

"It's true," read the tweet. "Our boneless wings are all white meat chicken. Our hamburgers contain no ham. Our buffalo wings are 0% buffalo."

Some commenters did not see the humor. 

"Then don't call them wings," one man wrote.

"Chicken nuggets. They’re chicken nuggets," wrote another. And another: "Nice try but Buffalo stands for the city not the animal. Your wings should be real. Stop being deceptive."

Others said the lawsuit was "asinine." 

"This lawsuit is so stupid," one user wrote. "I don’t even eat chicken, but I know boneless wings are made of breast meat."

Many restaurants started using breast meat to make buffalo "wings" following the Great Recession in 2008, when breast prices plummeted but wings did not, according to the lawsuit. 

Businesses that made the change soon saw the resulting profits, with many continuing the practice despite the end of the recession. 

"It seems clear why Buffalo Wild Wings began selling boneless wings, and why it has continued to purposefully mislead consumers: a profit motive," the lawsuit says. 

The company should have changed the name of boneless wings to something more appropriate, like chicken poppers, the lawsuit said, pointing to other restaurants that make clear what they are selling. 

Papa John's, for instance, sells Buffalo chicken poppers and describes the dish as all-white chicken breast meat. 

Chicken wings are more expensive than chicken breast, and the bottom line is that labeling the meat incorrectly is wrong, according to the lawsuit.

"Had plaintiff and other consumers known that the products are not actually chicken wings, they would have paid less for them, or would not have purchased them at all," the lawsuit said. "Therefore, plaintiff and consumers have suffered injury in fact, as a result of defendants’ deceptive practices."

The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and unspecified damages. e

Discussion Questions

  1. Define false advertising.
    False advertising is defined as the crime or tort of publishing, broadcasting, or otherwise publicly distributing an advertisement that contains an untrue, misleading, or deceptive representation or statement which was made knowingly or recklessly and with the intent to promote the sale of property, goods, and/or services to the public.
  2. As indicated in the article, the lawyers who filed the subject lawsuit are seeking other consumers who also have eaten boneless wings at one of the chain's hundreds of locations across the nation. What might be the motive(s) of the lawyers in identifying other customers? Explain your response.
    The lawyers who filed the subject lawsuit are most likely trying to form a class action.
    For more information regarding a class action lawsuit, see the response to Article 1, Discussion Question 1 of this newsletter.
  3. In your reasoned opinion, does this case have actual merit, or would you instead conclude “no harm, no foul?” (Pun not necessarily intended!)
    This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. In your author’s opinion, the Buffalo Wild Wings tweet referenced in the article is particularly effective in “trying the case in the forum of public opinion”: "Our boneless wings are all white meat chicken. Our hamburgers contain no ham. Our buffalo wings are 0% buffalo." If one were to deconstruct the tweet, however, no one expects hamburgers to contain ham, and no one expects buffalo wings to contain buffalo—in fact, it is common knowledge that buffalo wings are not actually buffalo wings! However, one could expect that buffalo wings are actually made of chicken wings.
    In your author’s opinion, the strongest aspect of the plaintiff’s lawsuit is the alleged profit motive of Buffalo Wild Wings. As indicated in the article (and in the lawsuit), many restaurants started using chicken breast meat to make buffalo "wings" following the Great Recession in 2008, when breast prices plummeted but wings did not. Businesses that made the change soon saw the resulting profits, with many continuing the practice despite the end of the recession. If chicken wings are in fact more expensive than chicken breasts, then Buffalo Wild Wings customers are arguably getting less than they “bargained for.”