> Where is the wing quote? ... Way to show you didn’t read the article bro.
Pot, meet kettle:
> In 2014, Red Bull announced it would pay more than $13 million to settle a lawsuit brought by buyers who said the energy drink didn't — as the marketing materials promised — "give you wings."
The "give you wings" wasn't literal, which is what the GP was complaining about.
FTA linked in the article:
"Red Bull does not, it turns out, give you wings — even in the figurative sense. Red Bull says in its marketing that the drink can improve concentration and reaction speeds, but the plaintiff in the case said these claims were false and lacked scientific support. While the suit did not allege that plaintiffs were disappointed that they didn't suddenly sprout wings, it does say that Red Bull relies a lot on terms like "wings" and "boost" to give consumers the impression that the drink gives people some sort of physical lift or enhancement."
I realize that, but "way to show you didn't read the article bro" is condescending and dumb even if they were correct, doubly so when the article clearly says it.
I agree that in the context of the linked article OP is wrong, and several other people already pointed out the quote you included. I'm responding to the quick and vapid dismissal that shows that imchillyb couldn't be bothered to do a search for "wings" before making fun of OP.
> In 2014, Red Bull announced it would pay more than $13 million to settle a lawsuit brought by buyers who said the energy drink didn't — as the marketing materials promised — "give you wings."
If you go to the source, obviously, the concern was not that it did not literally cause you to grow wings.
>Red Bull says in its marketing that the drink can improve concentration and reaction speeds, but the plaintiff in the case said these claims were false and lacked scientific support. While the suit did not allege that plaintiffs were disappointed that they didn't suddenly sprout wings, it does say that Red Bull relies a lot on terms like "wings" and "boost" to give consumers the impression that the drink gives people some sort of physical lift or enhancement.
Caffeine's "stimulation" is somewhat of an illusion, it only makes you feel stimulated if you're dependent and it only gets you to where you'd be if you didn't use at all. https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2012/08/21/caff...
Another important issue is that it will only stave off sleep with sugar.
Only for neurotypical people. For other populations the effect is real, I don’t know about clinical diagnostic tests but layman identifications commonly use “self-medicating with stimulants” as a red flag for suggesting someone seek a professional opinion.
So “can improve concentration”? Yes. Clinically proven. “Can improve [anyone’s] concentration”? Well you’re right that’s not true. But that’s relatively recent settled science, in part because there are plenty of anecdotes going back to Coca Cola being the “Thinking man’s drink” with coca leaves in it. Cocaine makes some people more focused. As does amphetamine, and methylphenidate.
But we’ve fucked the words “can” and “may” in legal terms. There is no accident that RFCs use MUST and WILL for mandatory behaviors, or that they’re in all caps.
Just for the record, terming ADHD 'unhealthy' is a bit dubious.
It's maladaptive in modern society, for sure, but that's a combination of the trait and modern society. Not necessarily a reflection on the trait in itself.
Please let me reiterate the call to actually read the article (and the lawsuit topic) before commenting. I know reading more than the title and some HN comments might be often unpopular - I'm guilty of it as well - but it helps a lot understanding.
?? It was a joke about the parent comment being unspecific about what benefits caffeine gives you. Can I reiterate a call to read the comment before replying to it?
It took me forever to find the original complaint, but eventually I found it here [1]. From the original:
> [Red Bull] have made various representations to consumers about the purported superior nature of Red Bull over simpler and less expensive caffeine only products, such as caffeine tablets or a cup of coffee. (...) However, no competent, credible, and reliable scientific evidence exists to support [Red Bull]'s Claims about the product.
Of course the whole purpose of settling is to never bring this issue in front of a court, but the fact that they settled and retired the slogan should, IMO, lend some credibility to this point.
> Suing a company because their drink does not give you wings is just... Stupid
Redbull has to pay 13 million dollars, so possibly not stupid.
Anyway, TFA is about “Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have no passion fruit.”
So not entirely without merit, also according to a judge.
Yes, that one sounds frivolous since it is unreasonable for the consumer to expect such an outcome (at least in a literal sense).
On the other hand, placing a common fruit in a product's name without making it equally clear that it is flavoring is misleading. At least in a food services type environment. While people can check the list of ingredients on the packaging in a grocery store, they would have to jump through hoops to get similar information when ordering food in a restaurant.
> In 2014, Red Bull announced it would pay more than $13 million to settle a lawsuit brought by buyers who said the energy drink didn't — as the marketing materials promised — "give you wings."
Rather than face federal judicial action, redbull paid out $13 million to settle.
I was wondering the same. Maybe there is just an uptick in legal firms taking interest in bringing suits because it has proven to be a viable business? The article points out these firms exist, but "increase in one form of lawyering over the last decade" isn't nearly as sexy as "Fed-up consumers are increasingly going after x"
I'm happy having thirsty lawyers act as part of society's enforcement against bad corporate behavior. It'd be better if the government did it first, but I'll take what I can get.
This. I'm against profiteering as much as the next guy, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. If they can curb these dubious practices, good for them.
It's the sum of both - your textbook cohort of litigious profiteers, now with the perfect social trend excuse so they can redouble their efforts and mask the profiteering as social justice. Expect to see much more of this going forward.
It's not very compelling evidence (just three selected data points), but the article states:
> According to Perkins Coie, a law firm that tracks such cases, 214 class-action lawsuits were filed against the food and beverage industry in 2022, and 331 cases were brought the year before.
> It's a major uptick from the 81 cases filed in 2014, less than a decade earlier.
No. But I have seen nothing to suggest a social trend of pushing back against wishful reporting.
Or one could view such embellishments as low-dose mood meds, added to keep people from getting too depressed, due to chronic over-consumption of news...
The scam here is that these same food companies have captured the FDA so they can claim they're following the law or doing what is "industry standard" while they're creating the laws. That's why we have all this deceptive packaging, serving sizes that make no sense, etc.
Say what you will about European regulations, but as an American who moved to Europe, I was absolutely floored when I bought a cheap bottle of sparkling mint-flavored water from the grocery store, and the ingredients were exactly:
* sparkling mineral water
* mint extract
I don’t know if a single brand exists in the US that uses actual ingredients in flavored water, I’ve always just seen the vague “natural flavor”. But here it was in the random budget store brand
This is not difficult to find at all in the US. I have tried several sparking waters that use actual ingredients - I don't recall all of them, but Spindrift is definitely one: https://drinkspindrift.com/pages/whats-inside. Have you Googled at all to try and find one of these brands?
There are no regulations necessary for this - thanks to capitalism, if people want real flavoring in their sparkling water, companies will make it. Regulation is about preventing companies from doing bad things, not about getting them to make good products.
It does say "natural white peach flavor", but also "natural flavors". This is supposedly a tea and peach flavored drink. It spells out "peach" and "black tea infusion", but then there's also some other mystery flavor.
Well, I sure hope that Barilla pasta sold in the US isn't made in Italy! Why would it be? Ok, maybe shipping wine and other luxury products halfway around the globe makes some sense, but I'm confident pasta can be manufactured to the same quality standards in most of the developed world. It's already bad enough that a brand called Kerrygold is actually shipping butter from Ireland all over Europe just so they can declare it as "Irish butter", or that French or Italian mineral water is being shipped all over the world...
And it still is, isn't it. However, nowhere does it imply that the pasta you have on your table is produced in Italy. I fully agree that we must push back on lies and deceit, but this example isn't one of them.
...and that's 100% true - it's an Italian company, and it's the market leader in Italy. And it's using the same recipes to make pasta in other countries, too. Don't see anything wrong, neither with the slogan, nor with the approach...
Except that the consumer isn't actually getting the product that made the brand #1 in Italy, are they? They're getting a differently-manufactured product with the same facade, but we both know the implication is that you're receiving the same product that has produced the property about which the company is bragging.
> It's already bad enough that a brand called Kerrygold is actually shipping butter from Ireland all over Europe just so they can declare it as "Irish butter"
They have to, it's EU regulations. It actually long predates the EU: Article 275 [0] of the Treaty of Versailles is probably not even the first international agreement about the labeling of products.
As a person who can’t eat wheat, it’s a useful distinction. There are many, many conversations about non-celiacs finding that they can eat wheat when traveling in Europe. Between herbicides (you know the one) and the very different strains of wheat we grow there is a lot to unpack.
I have a bag of Made in Italy pasta I am building up the courage to cook still.
Are you talking about Roundup? You'll be glad to know that it's not only still legal in the EU, but they're actually looking to extend its authorization for another 10 years. So the difference in pasta is probably coming from something else.
Do they use it as a defoliant? Pre-emergent herbicides have all season to break down. In the US we spray roundup on wheat at the end of the season to make it all harvestable at the same time. That is much closer to the minimums placed on the label, which are most likely wrong.
I don't know, it's not a subject I've followed closely. My comment was based on an article today in Le Figaro (French daily paper) [0] about how the EU proposed to prolong the authorization of glyphosate use for ten more years, since there was no conclusive evidence that it's harmful. However, apparently states still have to deliver authorizations for use themselves, and the EU calls on them to be careful about any harmful effects on "small mammals" and underground water. The article doesn't say anything about when it's allowed to be used. I've checked French Wikipedia which doesn't seem to say this, either.
Is there any evidence of this or do we just have social media anecdotes?
Else it just sounds like the Place, Japan meme like when Americans lose weight on vacation in Europe and claim they ate the same food/calories (how?) and also neglect to mention they walked 25000 steps.
Nobody knows what is going on. It’s certainly both. Psychosomatic people and people with real problems. We are just starting to figure out bowel and fatigue problems, and many people have both. Could be allergy, could be antibodies from an infection that accidentally to intentionally looked like elements of food, or the intestinal wall. Could be an exotic form of depression. Nobody knows.
For me I could eat wheat or drink coffee without problems, but both were multiplicatively bad. I chose coffee, but that lasted about six years and it was off the menu too. There is something about Chinese restaurant egg fried rice that just wrecks me. Popular theory is that they use some sort of filler in the eggs. Or something with their brand of soy sauce. Japanese, consumer soy sauce affects me but nowhere near this much. Tamari seems to be fine.
Thre are absolutely legitimate ingredient variation and quality differences in different parts of the world.
Taking your example of Kerrygold butter, have you ever tried it? It's _very_ good. I've had various other "premium" butters even sourced locally, and while they are also good in their own ways, there is a distinct flavor difference which I'm willing to pay for.
So if you as a company want to make your customers happy (and keep them as customers) by continuing to provide some certain specific aspect of your product that can only be achieved by producing it in a certain specific location, it's not reasonable to say "just make it local to where you sell it".
We get lots of European-produced staples (including Kerrygold butter!) in the US. I can't speak for everyone, but I definitely used to think that Barilla was shipping from Italy and that was why it was more expensive than the brands next to it.
It's a bit frustrating reading this article, There's clearly two different problems going on here.
Claiming your filling is 100% tuna or that your drink is made with aged vanilla, when both are completely untrue are just outright lies to deceive people. Companies doing this should legally be required to change their ways.
On the other hand, redbull not literally giving you wings is obvious. Only a child would literally believe this. There's a stark contrast between this and expecting açai in a "strawberry açai" drink.
To be fair, the red bull one is the only real outlier here, and it's only one sentence in the article. And the actual lawsuit wasn't about getting actual wings anyway.
Its a long rich history from PRopaganda against consumers.. the mc donalds coffee lady comes two mind, were mc donalds tried to ditch the medical costs for 3rd degree burns and put her up as a ambulance chaser.
To be fair to OP, in the context of the US legal system it wouldn't be unheard of for such an absurd lawsuit to be filed and settled, and the article we're discussing doesn't clarify what was actually meant.
There's a pretty big difference between the Pepsi Harrier case and puffery from Red Bull about it giving you wings.
Pepsi attached a value to a Harrier and included it in their catalog with other items you could purchase with pepsi points; it was the only item you could not buy with them.
I'm not saying a judge would rule in favor of a Red Bull plaintiff complaining about wings (the court ruled against the plaintiff in the Pepsi case), I'm saying that it's not unreasonable to interpret the reference in the article literally. Several people have done it, and in the context of the US legal system it's understandable.
> Pepsi attached a value to a Harrier and included it in their catalog with other items you could purchase with pepsi points
It wasn't in the catalog, it was in a single commercial that most people interpreted as a joke, likely including the plaintiff.
The actual claim in the Red Bull case isn’t that the drinker doesn’t get wings, but instead:
> Red Bull does not, it turns out, give you wings — even in the figurative sense. Red Bull says in its marketing that the drink can improve concentration and reaction speeds, but the plaintiff in the case said these claims were false and lacked scientific support. While the suit did not allege that plaintiffs were disappointed that they didn't suddenly sprout wings, it does say that Red Bull relies a lot on terms like "wings" and "boost" to give consumers the impression that the drink gives people some sort of physical lift or enhancement.
>On the other hand, redbull not literally giving you wings is obvious. Only a child would literally believe this.
Those words in blue are links. If you click them, you can read the article that line references and learn what the lawsuit was actually about:
>Red Bull says in its marketing that the drink can improve concentration and reaction speeds, but the plaintiff in the case said these claims were false and lacked scientific support. While the suit did not allege that plaintiffs were disappointed that they didn't suddenly sprout wings, it does say that Red Bull relies a lot on terms like "wings" and "boost" to give consumers the impression that the drink gives people some sort of physical lift or enhancement.
The Confusopoly of the mobile phone and car dealership world is expanding. Companies don't want you to be able to make informed choices. It's hilarious that something that came out of Dilbert became a term in economics textbooks.
This is why I really hope the UK doesn't sign a comprehensive trade agreement with the USA encompassing food. UK labelling regulations are currently "alright". They're grandfathered from the pre-Brexit EU regulations, although I'd prefer more-stringent rules. But please, please, don't import US labelling rules.
That ship is going to sail, immediately right after Brexit went through, there were whole delegations of US businessmen and lobbyists pushing the UK government back then to ease the rules on quality of food, so US can export more products.
You don't hear any government PR campaigns about keeping traditional food quality, so decisions were and will be made.
Then there's the real issue on labeling — if there is only X amount of a counted nutrient in a product, such as sugar, the label can say that there is no sugar in the product. This can significantly affect people who keep close tabs on what they eat, & who rely on honest labeling.
> it'd be a stretch to think that consumers would walk into a restaurant and think that the cheeseburger that they're going to get wrapped up in paper and stuck in a bag is going to look exactly like the one they see in the picture
Duh, why would I reasonably expect that the thing which is marketed to me corresponds to the thing delivered to me in the end? Nonsense! That would either require restaurants to up their game to match the beautiful stuff they pretend to sell, or to take actual pictures of the crap they serve. Can you imagine? Let's be serious!
79 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 291 ms ] threadThat's what two consumers who have sued Starbucks for consumer protection law violations say about the coffee giant's fruit-based drinks.
Where is the wing quote?
This suit is about false advertisement. Those sentences are the first two of the article.
Way to show you didn’t read the article bro.
Pot, meet kettle:
> In 2014, Red Bull announced it would pay more than $13 million to settle a lawsuit brought by buyers who said the energy drink didn't — as the marketing materials promised — "give you wings."
FTA linked in the article:
"Red Bull does not, it turns out, give you wings — even in the figurative sense. Red Bull says in its marketing that the drink can improve concentration and reaction speeds, but the plaintiff in the case said these claims were false and lacked scientific support. While the suit did not allege that plaintiffs were disappointed that they didn't suddenly sprout wings, it does say that Red Bull relies a lot on terms like "wings" and "boost" to give consumers the impression that the drink gives people some sort of physical lift or enhancement."
I agree that in the context of the linked article OP is wrong, and several other people already pointed out the quote you included. I'm responding to the quick and vapid dismissal that shows that imchillyb couldn't be bothered to do a search for "wings" before making fun of OP.
> In 2014, Red Bull announced it would pay more than $13 million to settle a lawsuit brought by buyers who said the energy drink didn't — as the marketing materials promised — "give you wings."
If you go to the source, obviously, the concern was not that it did not literally cause you to grow wings.
>Red Bull says in its marketing that the drink can improve concentration and reaction speeds, but the plaintiff in the case said these claims were false and lacked scientific support. While the suit did not allege that plaintiffs were disappointed that they didn't suddenly sprout wings, it does say that Red Bull relies a lot on terms like "wings" and "boost" to give consumers the impression that the drink gives people some sort of physical lift or enhancement.
So “can improve concentration”? Yes. Clinically proven. “Can improve [anyone’s] concentration”? Well you’re right that’s not true. But that’s relatively recent settled science, in part because there are plenty of anecdotes going back to Coca Cola being the “Thinking man’s drink” with coca leaves in it. Cocaine makes some people more focused. As does amphetamine, and methylphenidate.
But we’ve fucked the words “can” and “may” in legal terms. There is no accident that RFCs use MUST and WILL for mandatory behaviors, or that they’re in all caps.
Drugs are complicated.
It's maladaptive in modern society, for sure, but that's a combination of the trait and modern society. Not necessarily a reflection on the trait in itself.
Even in the perfect utopia, I would need medication to be healthy and enjoy life.
Sorry haha you're right though the lawsuit seems frivolous
> [Red Bull] have made various representations to consumers about the purported superior nature of Red Bull over simpler and less expensive caffeine only products, such as caffeine tablets or a cup of coffee. (...) However, no competent, credible, and reliable scientific evidence exists to support [Red Bull]'s Claims about the product.
Of course the whole purpose of settling is to never bring this issue in front of a court, but the fact that they settled and retired the slogan should, IMO, lend some credibility to this point.
[1] https://truthinadvertising.org/class-action/red-bull/
Redbull has to pay 13 million dollars, so possibly not stupid.
Anyway, TFA is about “Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have no passion fruit.”
So not entirely without merit, also according to a judge.
But it looks like that version of the lawsuit story is itself a highly-misleading claim:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/red-bulls-wings/
https://www.businessinsider.com/red-bull-settles-false-adver...
On the other hand, placing a common fruit in a product's name without making it equally clear that it is flavoring is misleading. At least in a food services type environment. While people can check the list of ingredients on the packaging in a grocery store, they would have to jump through hoops to get similar information when ordering food in a restaurant.
Rather than face federal judicial action, redbull paid out $13 million to settle.
If it’s stupid and it works, it’s not stupid.
2. Buy ONE of the product so you have standing for a case
3. Bring million dollar lawsuit against company
4. Profit
Is there evidence of that behind this article's conjecture? Is (American) society changing?
(Is this another twist of the "Where's the beef?" moment?)
> According to Perkins Coie, a law firm that tracks such cases, 214 class-action lawsuits were filed against the food and beverage industry in 2022, and 331 cases were brought the year before.
> It's a major uptick from the 81 cases filed in 2014, less than a decade earlier.
> Is there evidence...
No. But I have seen nothing to suggest a social trend of pushing back against wishful reporting.
Or one could view such embellishments as low-dose mood meds, added to keep people from getting too depressed, due to chronic over-consumption of news...
* sparkling mineral water * mint extract
I don’t know if a single brand exists in the US that uses actual ingredients in flavored water, I’ve always just seen the vague “natural flavor”. But here it was in the random budget store brand
There are no regulations necessary for this - thanks to capitalism, if people want real flavoring in their sparkling water, companies will make it. Regulation is about preventing companies from doing bad things, not about getting them to make good products.
Here's one in France: https://www.badoit.fr/bulles-et-the
It does say "natural white peach flavor", but also "natural flavors". This is supposedly a tea and peach flavored drink. It spells out "peach" and "black tea infusion", but then there's also some other mystery flavor.
Well, I sure hope that Barilla pasta sold in the US isn't made in Italy! Why would it be? Ok, maybe shipping wine and other luxury products halfway around the globe makes some sense, but I'm confident pasta can be manufactured to the same quality standards in most of the developed world. It's already bad enough that a brand called Kerrygold is actually shipping butter from Ireland all over Europe just so they can declare it as "Irish butter", or that French or Italian mineral water is being shipped all over the world...
It's strictly true, but it's also misleading.
But I never did a proper comparison, so this is subjective and speculative.
They have to, it's EU regulations. It actually long predates the EU: Article 275 [0] of the Treaty of Versailles is probably not even the first international agreement about the labeling of products.
[0] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles/Part_X#A...
I have a bag of Made in Italy pasta I am building up the courage to cook still.
Are you talking about Roundup? You'll be glad to know that it's not only still legal in the EU, but they're actually looking to extend its authorization for another 10 years. So the difference in pasta is probably coming from something else.
[0] in French: https://www.lefigaro.fr/social/glyphosate-bruxelles-propose-...
Else it just sounds like the Place, Japan meme like when Americans lose weight on vacation in Europe and claim they ate the same food/calories (how?) and also neglect to mention they walked 25000 steps.
For me I could eat wheat or drink coffee without problems, but both were multiplicatively bad. I chose coffee, but that lasted about six years and it was off the menu too. There is something about Chinese restaurant egg fried rice that just wrecks me. Popular theory is that they use some sort of filler in the eggs. Or something with their brand of soy sauce. Japanese, consumer soy sauce affects me but nowhere near this much. Tamari seems to be fine.
Taking your example of Kerrygold butter, have you ever tried it? It's _very_ good. I've had various other "premium" butters even sourced locally, and while they are also good in their own ways, there is a distinct flavor difference which I'm willing to pay for.
So if you as a company want to make your customers happy (and keep them as customers) by continuing to provide some certain specific aspect of your product that can only be achieved by producing it in a certain specific location, it's not reasonable to say "just make it local to where you sell it".
Not just Europe...
https://www.costcobusinessdelivery.com/Kerrygold-Pure-Irish-...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1378245/italy-export-vol...
Claiming your filling is 100% tuna or that your drink is made with aged vanilla, when both are completely untrue are just outright lies to deceive people. Companies doing this should legally be required to change their ways.
On the other hand, redbull not literally giving you wings is obvious. Only a child would literally believe this. There's a stark contrast between this and expecting açai in a "strawberry açai" drink.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry
That was _not_ the claim made in the relevant lawsuit; see the linked article.
See Pepsi and the Harrier jet:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
Pepsi attached a value to a Harrier and included it in their catalog with other items you could purchase with pepsi points; it was the only item you could not buy with them.
> Pepsi attached a value to a Harrier and included it in their catalog with other items you could purchase with pepsi points
It wasn't in the catalog, it was in a single commercial that most people interpreted as a joke, likely including the plaintiff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdackF2H7Qc
> Red Bull does not, it turns out, give you wings — even in the figurative sense. Red Bull says in its marketing that the drink can improve concentration and reaction speeds, but the plaintiff in the case said these claims were false and lacked scientific support. While the suit did not allege that plaintiffs were disappointed that they didn't suddenly sprout wings, it does say that Red Bull relies a lot on terms like "wings" and "boost" to give consumers the impression that the drink gives people some sort of physical lift or enhancement.
Those words in blue are links. If you click them, you can read the article that line references and learn what the lawsuit was actually about:
>Red Bull says in its marketing that the drink can improve concentration and reaction speeds, but the plaintiff in the case said these claims were false and lacked scientific support. While the suit did not allege that plaintiffs were disappointed that they didn't suddenly sprout wings, it does say that Red Bull relies a lot on terms like "wings" and "boost" to give consumers the impression that the drink gives people some sort of physical lift or enhancement.
There is a war against our ability to make informed choices about what we put in our bodies, and we are largely just letting it happen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusopoly
You don't hear any government PR campaigns about keeping traditional food quality, so decisions were and will be made.
Link to recent article detailing this: https://medium.com/@massdatasoft/how-tic-tac-is-misleading-y...
Duh, why would I reasonably expect that the thing which is marketed to me corresponds to the thing delivered to me in the end? Nonsense! That would either require restaurants to up their game to match the beautiful stuff they pretend to sell, or to take actual pictures of the crap they serve. Can you imagine? Let's be serious!