3 ms·

> Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have

> 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.

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.