- #1,331
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,291
Borg said:I guess that they should have claimed that it would turn people into litigious morons.
The above sounds moronic. But the actual nitty gritty of the lawsuit makes more sense. The contention was that Red Bull claimed their product was more "performance-enhancing" than the average cup of coffee. That is what wasn't born out by the facts:Benjamin Careathers, a regular consumer of the fizzy drink, sued the company for false advertising, arguing that after 10 years drinking Red Bull he neither had wings nor any enhanced athletic or intellectual performance.
So, the false advertising consists of presenting their product as somehow superior to coffee, hence worth more, when it actually isn't.“Even though there is a lack of genuine scientific support for a claim that Red Bull branded energy drinks provide any more benefit to a consumer than a cup of coffee, the Red Bull defendants persistently and pervasively market their product as a superior source of ‘energy’ worthy of a premium price over a cup of coffee or other sources of caffeine.”