"Decaf coffee"

It actually has 300000mg of caffeine

"It's well known that coffee has caffeine in it. Skill issue."

Boneless is a "cooking style?" No. It's which bag of chicken I pull out of the freezer before I even turn the oven on. I'm not going to sous vide the fucking bones out of my wings.

If the restaurant is deboning wings to order, fine. I'll accept that. But then that shit had better be on the menu so I know to be careful.

Would this logic extend to products labeled "alcohol-free"?

"Everyone knows beer has alcohol in it."

Ahh yes, another court in the pocket of corporations.

So just like all those "unlimited" phone plans with limits, "free" trials that require a credit card number and "lifetime" warranties that expire after a few years? Cool. Cool cool cool...

So amazingly stupid. The conservative justic's "logic" here is a case-study in failing upwards. He tries to say that "nobody would think that chicken fingers are actual fingers." Like, chicken fingers is a colloquial name, and is not the same as a fuckin descriptor adjective. He might as well say that dairy-free ice cream can have dairy in it, because "no reasonable person would think ice cream wouldn't have dairy in it."

what a joke. This brought to you by the same supreme court that has ruled against the will of Ohio voters who voted for an anti-gerrymandering bill, just to have a republican led commission drag it's feet, presenting identical maps, and instead of allowing the usage of an actual fair map, they just threw the baby out with bathwater, leaving in place the terrible gerrymandered maps that heavily favor republicans till 2030.

Just another reason I'll never move back to my home state. conservatives ruined it.

under new supreme court ruling, if you sell boneless chicken with bones, you aren't wrong, just an asshole

can't wait for this to apply to gluten free, sugar free, nut free products. people can die from this shit.

If I order boneless wings, and I get bones, I'm getting my fucking money back and not eating at that establishment ever again.

Buffalo wings aren't made from real Buffalo, either. Hell, most Buffalo can't even fly.

That's fucking ridiculous though I think it's perfectly fair for s restaurant not to be ultimately liable. This case feels like a gimmie to Perdue/Tyson to dodge any accountability for their bargin bin meat farming operations.

So... no company is beholden to anything that they say? Is that the gist...?

I'm gonna assume this is one of the Project 2025 legislations

I don't know why but it reminds me of an American friend I had who couldn't beleive we didn't have limits on the amount maggots/maggots eggs allowed in fruit juice.

They refused to drink any fruit juice here until it had to be explained to them that the reason that there's no acceptable limit on maggots/maggots eggs in our fruit juice is because ANY amount of maggot is over the acceptable amount.

Not their fault of course. We only know what we're used to.

What is the difference between chicken nuggets and boneless wings? The article mentions that boneless wings are 'of course' nuggets of breast meat.

I wonder if they'd have agreed that nuggets can have bones too?

Its getting where courts at every level are running contrary to logic and justice.

Slavery is freedom. War is peace. Boneless pizza can now have bones.

The Ohio Supreme Court's decision to allow chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' to contain bones warrants an examination of the principles underlying voluntary exchanges and the protection of consumer rights. When individuals engage in transactions, the terms and descriptions presented are expected to be accurate, fostering trust and informed decision-making. An advertisement promising 'boneless' wings that includes bones disrupts this trust, introducing an element of deception.

For a marketplace to function effectively, it is essential that representations made in the course of business transactions are truthful. Consumers rely on these representations to make choices that align with their preferences and expectations. If these expectations are systematically violated, the very foundation of voluntary exchange is compromised.

Thus, the court's role in addressing such issues is to ensure that the transactional environment remains transparent and honest. By upholding standards against misleading advertisements, the court helps maintain the integrity of voluntary exchanges, allowing individuals to engage in transactions free from coercion and deceit.

So boneless wings can have bones.. But do boned wings still have to have bones? I am a boneless wing enjoyer and I hate bone wings. Why waste all that effort eating around the bones when you can just not?

So what then is the difference between the boneless chicken wing cooking style and normal chicken wing cooking style? If it starts with "take a piece of chicken meat without any bones", then what stops this line of argument from saying that it doesn't matter how well they follow the recipe and thus restaurants can serve whatever they want to meet any order and then just say "we were following the (name of food) cooking style, not promising that, and are just bad at following that style or made up our own version"?

On a related note, how are judges determined to be qualified to make any decision? Are they supposed to be fair and intelligent, or just do their best to judge things in a fair and intelligent style?

That said, there was a bit of a fluke involved to have the bone go down the wrong way and also him not even notice for a few days. IMO in a proper decision, the restaurant shouldn't have been fully liable for this incident, though they should have had some liability for that bone. And then some of that liability might be passed on to whoever provided them with the "boneless" chicken meat.

Did the restaurant just screw up the order, or was this some process deficiency with the deboner?

We are talking chicken, not fish, right?

More lies from the saucy nugs