To be fair, calling them “wings” was to my knowledge more about linking them to how chicken wings as a dish were prepared and presented than a statement on where the meat came from on the bird.

I don’t know much about this case in particular but it fits into a long pattern of activist conservative judges basically legislating from the bench to protect business interests. So it’s unsurprising that one of them would basically say “no one actually believes the wing part, so there’s no reason for them to believe the boneless part either, and therefore there’s no liability if there are bones in the product.”