Okay, so the headline here is a little misleading, but it's interesting in terms of case law and a warning that labels -- including on food -- aren't always 100% accurate.
Chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court decides https://t.co/o08oMShRx6
— The Associated Press (@AP) July 25, 2024
Consumers cannot expect boneless chicken wings to actually be free of bones, a divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled Thursday, rejecting claims by a restaurant patron who suffered serious medical complications from getting a bone stuck in his throat.
Michael Berkheimer was dining with his wife and friends at a wing joint in Hamilton, Ohio, and had ordered the usual — boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce — when he felt a bite-size piece of meat go down the wrong way. Three days later, feverish and unable to keep food down, Berkeimer went to the emergency room, where a doctor discovered a long, thin bone that had torn his esophagus and caused an infection.
The court basically said that bones can still be present in boneless meat, because 'boneless' is a 'cooking style' (we disagree, but okay).
just a little, as a treat
— pourmecoffee (@pourmecoffee) July 25, 2024
A surprise, like a Kinder Egg.
ohio wyd 😭 https://t.co/lv2F8YjaCu pic.twitter.com/KrYRyOAE29
— Amygator 🐊 *not an actual alligator (@AmyA1A) July 25, 2024
Right?
Easy fix. Stop calling them ‘boneless wings’. They are not wings. It’s silly to call them ‘wings’. They come from a different part of the chicken.
— Jonny Nomadic (@JonnyNomadic) July 25, 2024
Chicken nuggets, chicken tenders, whatever. You can make it very clear by calling them what they are.
'Boneless wings' are just a fancy way of saying 'chicken nugget' in this writer's opinion, anyway.
How is that not false advertising?
— James Lasher (@TheJamesLasher) July 25, 2024
An excellent question.
Boneless is not a cooking style (in this writer's opinion, but she's not a lawyer). It's a form -- like seedless watermelon. They're specifying that this product doesn't contain bones.
And it doesn't seem like the Ohio supreme court made a distinction that a shard of bone (likely from a manufacturing error) is different from actual bones, especially referring to 'boneless' as a form of cooking.
??? We cooked the bones boneless style pic.twitter.com/Y3UpA9c32o
— Rob Freund (@RobertFreundLaw) July 25, 2024
Make it make sense.
Thank goodness they reached this monumental decision.
— Brad Sea (@BSEAondeck) July 25, 2024
Our national nightmare is finally over.
Peace is restored across the land.
Whoever Justice Deters is, he has never once been to a restaurant https://t.co/y9FCARjFEF pic.twitter.com/c7xXfuUJus
— Jill Twiss (@jilltwiss) July 25, 2024
Not even once.
Do not let the funny headline distract you, a la the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit, from what is actually a serious case that further erodes consumer rights. https://t.co/EBoQSJBvsV pic.twitter.com/SA4uw2E03C
— Robert Downen (@RobertDownen_) July 25, 2024
It is an erosion.
'Boneless' means something -- free from bones. We expect chicken nuggets to contain chicken, and beef to contain beef.
At a minimum, it seemed like there was an error in the quality control at some point and a man suffered a pretty serious injury because of it.
When a court decides that "boneless" doesn't mean "without bones," it erodes public confidence in the legal system. https://t.co/Dvr8OHLX7S
— Doug Gladden (@DougtheLawyer) July 25, 2024
It does.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member