After reviewing the case, the ARB ruled that the advertisement was not misleading, as KFC has consistently marketed its "dunked wings" in this manner, and the product images allow consumers to make an informed choice.

The complaint stemmed from the perceived inconsistency between KFC’s "dunked wings" and the wings included in its Streetwise meals. The complainant questioned why the former consisted of smaller portions, whereas a "wing" in a streetwise meal was a full wing. In response, KFC argued that its use of "wings" aligns with industry norms, where the term often refers to wing portions rather than whole wings. It cited examples from other fast-food chains such as Spur, Pedro’s, and Chicken Licken, which use similar terminology.

The ARB assessed the case under Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice, which prohibits misleading advertising. It acknowledged that while there was some inconsistency in KFC’s descriptions—referring to "zinger wings" as "winglets" while not doing the same for "dunked wings"—the presence of images and detailed descriptions in the online menu allowed consumers to understand the product being offered. The ruling noted that customers familiar with KFC’s menu would not reasonably expect full wings, and therefore, the advertisement was not misleading.

However, the ARB suggested that KFC could enhance clarity by consistently labelling its "dunked wings" as "winglets" across all its menu descriptions to prevent any potential confusion.