TRUTH IN PACKAGING.

Immediately before the Festive Season, home improvement store Menards settled a lawsuit.

Recently, Menards agreed to a multi-state settlement totaling over $4 million after regulators determined its 11% rebate advertising misled shoppers. Wisconsin received $750,000 under the agreement, along with changes that clarified and simplified the store's terms.

The presentation was the core issue; signs highlighted a reduced price that appeared to shoppers as immediate. At checkout, they paid the full price, with the savings arriving weeks later as a store credit after mailing the applicable forms. Many customers believed the discount was instant, not after paperwork and weeks.

When a store advertises a discounted price, it suggests you can pay that lower price today. A rebate suggests a delayed benefit tomorrow. For years, Menards blurred that distinction, leaning on bold percentages while burying the mechanics in smaller, fine print.

Legally precise language didn't repair the emotional response; shoppers compared shelf prices and made informed decisions based on what they found. Later, they learned that the deal worked differently. Even customers who eventually received credit felt they were misled because of the expectations formed at the shelf, not in the mail weeks later.

The settlement demands clearer signage and extends the rebate claim window to at least one year, reducing the odds that customers might miss out after the fact.

On the one hand, stores promoting a net price after rebate have been around for years, and many of them use a variation on the send-in-a-ticket for a store credit rather than awarding the discount at the cash register.  In some ways it's less troublesome than clipping coupons to get the lower price at checkout, and it's less intrusive than having your telephone number or your electronic mail on file to qualify for the lower price.  On the other hand, when your store's tagline is "You'll save big money" and that jingle is on a continuous loop right there with the Festive Season mix, somebody might interpret that claim as meaning a bargain now, not later.

Clarity ought not be optional, notes Pajamas Media's David Manney.

There's an inherent trust that underpins retail pricing, where consumers scan shelves, compare their options, and rely on clear signals. When price cues mislead, even unintentionally, confidence in that trust erodes.

There's nothing inherently wrong with rebates; many customers value them. But problems occur when marketing presents a rebate as a price cut, a distinction that matters because it shapes buying decisions in real time, not weeks later.

When labels are clearly written, it protects both the customer and the store because when prices mean what they say, there's hardly any frustration, and feelings of loyalty are fostered.

Speaking of clear labels, did you know that boneless chicken wings do not come from the Boneless Chicken Ranch.

An Illinois man was disappointed to learn that Buffalo Wild Wings were not being good sports about their boneless wings.

Back in January 2023, Aimen Halim bought an order of "boneless wings" at a Buffalo Wild Wings (BWW) outlet in Mount Prospect, Illinois. At the time, he claims, he assumed the product was composed of deboned chicken wing meat. But to his horror, he discovered that it was in fact made from chicken breast meat. That revelation resulted in a federal lawsuit that Halim filed against the chicken chain two months later, alleging breach of express warranty, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment.

When he dismissed that lawsuit on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr. did not question Halim's claim of confusion about the nature of boneless wings. But even if Halim honestly thought he was getting a deboned version of BWW's "traditional" wings, Tharp says in his 10-page opinion, "his complaint has no meat on its bones," because "Halim does not plausibly allege that reasonable consumers are deceived by boneless wings."

That conclusion jibes with BWW's cheeky response to Halim's claims. "It's true," the company tweeted a few days after the lawsuit was filed. "Our boneless wings are all white meat chicken. Our hamburgers contain no ham. Our buffalo wings are 0% buffalo."

BWW describes its boneless wings as "juicy all-white chicken." But as The New York Times notes, it is not clear "whether chicken wings are light or dark meat." While "wings are technically white meat," their "fat levels" are similar to those of "legs and thighs."

Even without that clue, Halim's avowed expectation of what he would get when he ordered boneless wings is hard to credit. Halim "says he expected to receive 'wings that were deboned (i.e., comprised entirely of chicken wing meat),'" Tharp notes. "It's unclear what, exactly, Halim expected such wing fillets to look like, or how he thought they would be made, and the complaint does not allege that the 'boneless wings' actually resembled traditional chicken wings (whether the drumettes, the flats, or both). It's also unclear when or how Halim learned that BWW's boneless wings aren't really made from wing meat."

BWW said "a reasonable consumer would not be misled by the term 'boneless wings' because context clues make clear that the nuggets cannot be made of wing meat," Tharp writes. But Halim argued that "the term 'boneless wings' is 'literally false' because the products are not wings."

Tharp thinks that's "debatable." In context, BWW said, "wing" refers to a style of cooking rather than a particular body part. Tharp notes that "words can have multiple meanings." The term "buffalo wing," for example, "refers to the type of sauce on the wing, rather than indicating it is made of buffalo meat." Similarly, "chicken fingers" do not consist of amputated digits. But even if "the term 'boneless wings' is 'literally false,'" Tharp says, that does not necessarily mean it is deceptive.

Fortunately for the lawyers, it's easier to filet words than it is to filet wings.  It's possible that the trial judge, recognizing that the disgruntled eater had made common cause with a class-action-suit mongering firm, concluded that levity was on order.

Since "boneless wings are presented as an alternative to traditional wings," Halim argued, "reasonable consumers would think boneless wings are made from wing meat." But as BWW pointed out, that argument also would apply to the chain's cauliflower "wings," which it likewise offers as an alternative to traditional wings. "If Halim is right, reasonable consumers should think that cauliflower wings are made (at least in part) from wing meat," Tharp writes. "They don't, though."

Halim conceded that point, saying "'cauliflower wing' is clearly a fanciful name because cauliflowers do not have wings." But "'boneless wing' is also clearly a fanciful name, because chickens do have wings, and those wings have bones," Tharp says. "A reasonable consumer would not think that BWW's boneless wings were truly deboned chicken wings, reconstituted into some sort of Franken-wing."

Tharp also notes that BWW's "boneless wings" cost less than its "traditional" wings. "Common sense tells consumers that a product made out of the same ingredients, but requiring more time and work to create, would cost more," he writes. "Moreover, boneless wings are not new; even putting aside the news articles that report that 'boneless wings' have been around since before the turn of the century, Halim's complaint alleges BWW has sold them since 2003. Boneless wings are not a niche product for which a consumer would need to do extensive research to figure out the truth. Instead, 'boneless wings' is a common term that has existed for over two decades."

Halim, in short, "did not 'drum' up enough factual allegations to state a claim," Tharp says. "He does not plausibly allege that reasonable consumers are fooled by BWW's use of the term 'boneless wings.'"

It does not have to follow that because more work is involved in making chicken filets, that the nuggets would cost less than the wings.  Each chicken produces two wings, two breasts, two thighs, and two legs.  If the chicken is raised for its breast meat, yes, the wings and legs are the byproduct, but it does not have to follow that there are not chickens raised for wing and legs.

And, unlike Menards, promotions on boneless wings are at the point of sale.  Buy one order on Thursday, a second order of the same size is half price.