4 ms·

I'm sorry... Suing a company because their drink does not give you wings is just... Stupid

imchillyb 3y ago
> Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have no passion fruit. That'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.
- lolinder 3y ago
  > 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."
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    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."
    - lolinder 3y ago
      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.
- pumpkindaughter 3y ago
  Eek, you should go back and read the article...
- rsynnott 3y ago
  I assume they read this overly literally: > 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.
boomboomsubban 3y ago
From the linked article on that suit >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.
- donatj 3y ago
  Isn’t caffeine, which Red Bull contains in spades, scientifically shown to do all those things?
  - Projectiboga 3y ago
    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/caffeine-the-silent-killer-of-emotional-intelligence/?sh=7455c11c118c https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2012/08/21/caff... Another important issue is that it will only stave off sleep with sugar.
    - hinkley 3y ago
      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.
    - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mdekkers 3y ago
> 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.
bell-cot 3y ago
True... 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.snopes.com/fact-check/red-bulls-wings/ https://www.businessinsider.com/red-bull-settles-false-advertising-lawsuit-for-13-million-2014-10?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/red-bull-settles-false-adver...
II2II 3y ago
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.
imchillyb 3y ago
> 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. If it’s stupid and it works, it’s not stupid.
acheron 3y ago
This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my lawsuit against the film The Neverending Story.
detritus 3y ago
oh my gosh, i thought you were joking!

> Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have no passion fruit. That'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.

lolinder 3y ago
> 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."
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  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."
  - lolinder 3y ago
    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.
pumpkindaughter 3y ago
Eek, you should go back and read the article...
rsynnott 3y ago
I assume they read this overly literally: > 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.

boomboomsubban 3y ago

From the linked article on that suit >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.

donatj 3y ago
Isn’t caffeine, which Red Bull contains in spades, scientifically shown to do all those things?
- Projectiboga 3y ago
  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/caffeine-the-silent-killer-of-emotional-intelligence/?sh=7455c11c118c https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2012/08/21/caff... Another important issue is that it will only stave off sleep with sugar.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    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.
  - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mdekkers 3y ago

> 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.

bell-cot 3y ago

True... 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.snopes.com/fact-check/red-bulls-wings/ https://www.businessinsider.com/red-bull-settles-false-advertising-lawsuit-for-13-million-2014-10?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/red-bull-settles-false-adver...

II2II 3y ago

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.

imchillyb 3y ago

> 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. If it’s stupid and it works, it’s not stupid.

acheron 3y ago

This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my lawsuit against the film The Neverending Story.

detritus 3y ago

oh my gosh, i thought you were joking!