{"id":144384,"date":"2026-02-18T15:44:06","date_gmt":"2026-02-18T23:44:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/02\/18\/district-court-upholds-decision-that-restaurants-can-coast-on-vibes\/"},"modified":"2026-02-18T15:44:06","modified_gmt":"2026-02-18T23:44:06","slug":"district-court-upholds-decision-that-restaurants-can-coast-on-vibes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/02\/18\/district-court-upholds-decision-that-restaurants-can-coast-on-vibes\/","title":{"rendered":"District Court Upholds Decision That Restaurants Can Coast On Vibes"},"content":{"rendered":"

There are two prominent paths<\/a> for explaining why words mean what they do. There are prescriptive paths that bind words to what they\u2019ve meant historically, and descriptive paths that say words gain meaning based on how they\u2019re used by real people. I tend to play at being a descriptive definer \u2014 rather that than the alternative of being a language hall monitor \u2014 but there are some limiting words that really bring out the grammar alt-right in me.<\/p>\n

Take literally. Not literally, you can\u2019t take literally literally<\/em>, but virtually. At some dark moment in our collective history the word literally, generally understood as a decidedly non-figurative \u201cthat thing right there\u201d sort of word, became its own foil. Literally literally came to mean something closer to figuratively or virtually, because that\u2019s how idiots<\/s> young adults on the cutting edge of culture used the word. The prescriptivist in me would jump out and say that\u2019s not what literally literally<\/em> means, just go look in a dictionary! Alas, Marriam-Webster has given in to the decadence and accepts literal\u2019s literal and virtual meaning<\/a>. Around this point you might be thinking to yourself \u201cChris, what the hell does this have to do with the law?\u201d My answer: it literally has to do with chicken wings. NYT<\/a> has coverage:<\/p>\n

\n

In an opinion heavy on chicken puns, a district court judge ruled on Tuesday that the boneless wings at Buffalo Wild Wings could indeed be called wings.<\/p>\n

The order, in a lawsuit filed by a Chicago man in 2023, was dripping with skepticism at the claims that the chain was misleading consumers about its boneless wings.<\/p>\n

Judge John J. Tharp Jr., of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, dismissed claim by Aimen Halim, saying it \u201chas no meat on its bones.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The judge upheld Buffalo Wild Wings\u2019 argument that the \u201cwing\u201d in the name doesn\u2019t refer to the anatomical wing of a chicken, but rather the style of cooking the dish. Forgive my french, but that\u2019s fucking stupid. Grinding something up, maybe battering it, then deep frying it isn\u2019t \u201cwinging\u201d it, and we need to stop pretending like it is. Or do you mean to tell me that McDonalds can rebrand their hash browns as \u201cPotato Wings\u201d and no one will bat an eye? If you ever tell some Nonna that the Arancini she\u2019s making legally qualify as risotto wings, you should fully expect a video of her beating you with a spoon to end up on the Italian equivalent of World Star Hip Hop<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The judge makes the analogous argument that a patron ordering Cauliflower wings (an item offered on the menu), wouldn\u2019t think that the dish has bones in it. First, the example is very apples to oranges considering cauliflowers don\u2019t have bones. Second, this failure in reasoning has to involve ignoring the reasonable person standard. A reasonable person wouldn\u2019t think \u201cOh, the wing here refers to the cooking style\u201d, they\u2019d think \u201cThis place is about to up charge me on cauliflower nuggets. I deserve this. Stupid Stupid Stupid!\u201d Because that\u2019s what cauliflower \u201cwings\u201d and boneless \u201cwings\u201d are \u2014 glorified nuggets. It is a shame that we can\u2019t even rely on judges to speak truth to Big Chicken\u2122.<\/p>\n

There are many pressing issues that need to go to the Supreme Court. This is one of them. <\/p>\n

A case came out of Ohio where a man was injured because he ate an order of Boneless wings that he reasonably presumed didn\u2019t have bones in them. The state\u2019s Supreme Court decided that it was entirely reasonable that boneless wings could have bones in them<\/a>. That is literally beyond all reason. We have courts telling us both the \u201cBoneless\u201d and the \u201cWings\u201d in boneless wings are just vibe checks? Remember when the energy drink company was successfully sued for millions over falsely advertising that Red Bull gives you wings in a New York court<\/a>? We used to be a proper country. Now, more than ever, we need to Make Wings Great A\u2026damn it, the grammar alt-right in me almost seeped out again.<\/p>\n

Boneless Wings Are Still Wings, Judge Rules<\/a> [New York Times]<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: \u2018Boneless\u2019 Wings Can Have Bones, Declare Committed Textualists<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord\u2122 in the Facebook group\u00a0Law School Memes for Edgy T14s . \u00a0He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who is learning to swim,\u00a0is interested in critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at\u00a0cwilliams@abovethelaw.com <\/a>and by tweet at\u00a0@WritesForRent<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The post District Court Upholds Decision That Restaurants Can Coast On Vibes<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

There are two prominent paths<\/a> for explaining why words mean what they do. There are prescriptive paths that bind words to what they\u2019ve meant historically, and descriptive paths that say words gain meaning based on how they\u2019re used by real people. I tend to play at being a descriptive definer \u2014 rather that than the alternative of being a language hall monitor \u2014 but there are some limiting words that really bring out the grammar alt-right in me.<\/p>\n

Take literally. Not literally, you can\u2019t take literally literally<\/em>, but virtually. At some dark moment in our collective history the word literally, generally understood as a decidedly non-figurative \u201cthat thing right there\u201d sort of word, became its own foil. Literally literally came to mean something closer to figuratively or virtually, because that\u2019s how idiots<\/s> young adults on the cutting edge of culture used the word. The prescriptivist in me would jump out and say that\u2019s not what literally literally<\/em> means, just go look in a dictionary! Alas, Marriam-Webster has given in to the decadence and accepts literal\u2019s literal and virtual meaning<\/a>. Around this point you might be thinking to yourself \u201cChris, what the hell does this have to do with the law?\u201d My answer: it literally has to do with chicken wings. NYT<\/a> has coverage:<\/p>\n

\n

In an opinion heavy on chicken puns, a district court judge ruled on Tuesday that the boneless wings at Buffalo Wild Wings could indeed be called wings.<\/p>\n

The order, in a lawsuit filed by a Chicago man in 2023, was dripping with skepticism at the claims that the chain was misleading consumers about its boneless wings.<\/p>\n

Judge John J. Tharp Jr., of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, dismissed claim by Aimen Halim, saying it \u201chas no meat on its bones.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The judge upheld Buffalo Wild Wings\u2019 argument that the \u201cwing\u201d in the name doesn\u2019t refer to the anatomical wing of a chicken, but rather the style of cooking the dish. Forgive my french, but that\u2019s fucking stupid. Grinding something up, maybe battering it, then deep frying it isn\u2019t \u201cwinging\u201d it, and we need to stop pretending like it is. Or do you mean to tell me that McDonalds can rebrand their hash browns as \u201cPotato Wings\u201d and no one will bat an eye? If you ever tell some Nonna that the Arancini she\u2019s making legally qualify as risotto wings, you should fully expect a video of her beating you with a spoon to end up on the Italian equivalent of World Star Hip Hop<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The judge makes the analogous argument that a patron ordering Cauliflower wings (an item offered on the menu), wouldn\u2019t think that the dish has bones in it. First, the example is very apples to oranges considering cauliflowers don\u2019t have bones. Second, this failure in reasoning has to involve ignoring the reasonable person standard. A reasonable person wouldn\u2019t think \u201cOh, the wing here refers to the cooking style\u201d, they\u2019d think \u201cThis place is about to up charge me on cauliflower nuggets. I deserve this. Stupid Stupid Stupid!\u201d Because that\u2019s what cauliflower \u201cwings\u201d and boneless \u201cwings\u201d are \u2014 glorified nuggets. It is a shame that we can\u2019t even rely on judges to speak truth to Big Chicken\u2122.<\/p>\n

There are many pressing issues that need to go to the Supreme Court. This is one of them. <\/p>\n

A case came out of Ohio where a man was injured because he ate an order of Boneless wings that he reasonably presumed didn\u2019t have bones in them. The state\u2019s Supreme Court decided that it was entirely reasonable that boneless wings could have bones in them<\/a>. That is literally beyond all reason. We have courts telling us both the \u201cBoneless\u201d and the \u201cWings\u201d in boneless wings are just vibe checks? Remember when the energy drink company was successfully sued for millions over falsely advertising that Red Bull gives you wings in a New York court<\/a>? We used to be a proper country. Now, more than ever, we need to Make Wings Great A\u2026damn it, the grammar alt-right in me almost seeped out again.<\/p>\n

Boneless Wings Are Still Wings, Judge Rules<\/a> [New York Times]<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: \u2018Boneless\u2019 Wings Can Have Bones, Declare Committed Textualists<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord\u2122 in the Facebook group\u00a0Law School Memes for Edgy T14s . \u00a0He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who is learning to swim,\u00a0is interested in critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at\u00a0cwilliams@abovethelaw.com <\/a>and by tweet at\u00a0@WritesForRent<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The post District Court Upholds Decision That Restaurants Can Coast On Vibes<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There are two prominent paths for explaining why words mean what they do. There are prescriptive paths that bind words to what they\u2019ve meant historically, and descriptive paths that say words gain meaning based on how they\u2019re used by real people. I tend to play at being a descriptive definer \u2014 rather that than the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":144385,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-144384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Chris-Williams-2025-46MVHO.jpg?fit=512%2C288&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144384","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=144384"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144384\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/144385"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}