CHICAGO (Legal Newsline) - Buffalo Wild Wings is continuing the ridicule of the man who sued it because he expected "boneless wings" to be actual chicken wings with the bones removed.
The restaurant chain's June 27 motion to dismiss cites media outrage following the case's filing and expands on its original response on Twitter that added "Our hamburgers contain no ham. Our buffalo wings are 0% buffalo."
"But why stop there," asks the motion, filed in Chicago federal court. "Popcorn shrimp do not have popcorn; hotdogs have 0% dog; pork butt is actually pork shoulder; and Moon Pies are not handcrafted by the man in the moon."
Cases of consumer deception boil down to whether a "reasonable consumer" would have been misled by the defendant. "The public's incredulous response" to the lawsuit shows plaintiff Aimen Halim is no reasonable consumer, the motion argues.
Halim, represented by Ruhandy Glezakos of Treehouse Law, said he bought boneless wings because he thought they would be actual wings deboned, not deep-fried breast meat. He hails Domino's for calling its similar product "boneless chicken" and Papa John's for using the term "Chicken Poppers."
The motion to dismiss notes an anchor on NBC's Today Show jokingly asked if the lawsuit was something from The Onion - a satirical website. Plus, The Onion wrote about the case: Restaurants have been cheating us out of bones for years."
Had Halim been a reasonable consumer, BWW says, he would have realized boneless wings are cheaper than traditional, which eliminates his standing because he suffered no economic injury.
His own complaint noted it would be just about impossible to sell wings that had been deboned.
"In short, consumers' ordinary experiences demonstrate that Plaintiff's professed belief - that the boneless wings are deboned wings and reformed into processed, bite-sized chunks - is as unreasonable as it is unappetizing," the motion says.
BWW is represented by Jason Rosenberg and other lawyers at Alston & Bird in Atlanta, as well as attorneys at Actuate Law in Chicago.
The suit seeks relief under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, among other claims.
"Had Mr. Halim known that the products are not chicken wings, he would not have purchased them, or would have paid significantly less for them," the suit says.
"Therefore, Mr. Halim suffered a financial injury as a result of Defendants' false and deceptive conduct."