(Newswire.net — October 6, 2014) — According to Law360, Red Bull would be required to pay $6.5 million into a settlement fund within a week, if the proposed settlement is accepted by the court.
If you can prove that you purchased at least one Red Bull can over the past 10 years, you can get a $10 cash reimbursement or two free Red Bull products with an approximate retail value of $15 (Red Bull would cover shipping costs).
“Red Bull settled the lawsuit to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation.” said Red Bull officials to BevNET.com in an email.
“However, Red Bull maintains that its marketing and labeling have always been truthful and accurate, and denies any and all wrongdoing or liability.” Red Bull officials wrote.
According to the suit, Red Bull misleads consumers with its slogan “Red Bull gives you wings” and its claims of increased performance, concentration and reaction speed.
“Such deceptive conduct and practices mean that [Red Bull’s] advertising and marketing is not just ‘puffery,’ but is instead deceptive and fraudulent and is therefore actionable,” the suit says.
Energy drinks provide their boost through caffeine alone, not Guarana or any other ingredient, European Food Safety experts says.
Regular serving of Red Bull [8.4 oz] contains 80 milligrams of caffeine. A 7 oz. cup of drip coffee contains almost double that amount, approximately 115 to 175 milligrams of caffeine.
“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,” the suit says.
Red Bull denied any wrongdoing, however, the company has voluntarily withdrawn and revised marketing claims challenged in court.
State governments have a variety of unfair competition laws, which regulate false advertising, trademark, and related issues through the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
In the 2013-2014, the United States Supreme Court is reviewing two false advertising cases: Static Control v. Lexmark and POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co..