Raising Cane’s lease dispute in Boston’s Back Bay escalates into lawsuit over food odors and exclusivity

A lease fight at 775 Boylston Street heads to Suffolk Superior Court

Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers has filed a lawsuit in Suffolk Superior Court seeking to block what it says is an improper attempt to terminate its lease at 775 Boylston St. in Boston’s Back Bay. The dispute centers on complaints about food odors and on provisions in the lease that address how the space may be used and what competing concepts may operate in the same building.

The restaurant, which opened at the Boylston Street address in 2022, says it holds a lease that runs through 2037. The complaint names 775 Boylston LLC as the defendant and describes a conflict that intensified after office space in the building was leased to upstairs tenants who then raised odor concerns.

Odor complaints and competing narratives

In court filings, Raising Cane’s argues that cooking-related smells are inherent to operating a chicken-focused restaurant and that any such odors should have been anticipated when the lease was signed. The company also contends that building conditions and the configuration of the property contribute to the problem and that it took steps to mitigate impacts after complaints surfaced.

Raising Cane’s states it spent more than $200,000 on efforts intended to reduce odors. Despite those measures, the company says it was told the landlord intended to terminate the lease based on “offensive” or “nuisance” smells.

The case frames a common tension in mixed-use buildings: restaurant operations that are lawful and expected at street level can still trigger disputes when upper floors are used for offices or residences.

Exclusivity clause and alleged tenant mix changes

Beyond odor claims, Raising Cane’s alleges the landlord sought to have the company relinquish an exclusivity right it says is embedded in the lease—described as a restriction intended to prevent another “chicken restaurant” from operating in the same building. The lawsuit further alleges that the landlord has been in talks with Panda Express for a nearby space that had previously been occupied by Starbucks.

If the exclusivity provision is upheld as written, the court may be asked to interpret how that restriction applies in practice, including what constitutes a “chicken restaurant” under the lease language and whether the landlord’s leasing plans conflict with the tenant’s contractual rights.

What the court may decide next

The immediate legal questions are likely to focus on whether the landlord has grounds to declare a lease default based on odors, and whether termination procedures—notice requirements, opportunities to cure, and standards for nuisance—were followed.

• Whether odors rise to a lease-violating nuisance or are an expected byproduct of permitted restaurant use

• Whether mitigation steps were sufficient under lease standards

• Whether exclusivity provisions restrict new tenants and, if so, how broadly

• Whether the landlord’s termination notice, if issued, complied with contractual requirements

The case arrives as national restaurant brands continue expanding in Boston’s high-rent corridors, where older buildings and tight footprints can complicate ventilation, mechanical systems, and tenant compatibility. The court’s rulings could clarify how lease provisions governing odors, building conditions, and exclusivity are enforced in dense mixed-use properties.