>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.
> [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.
Sorry haha you're right though the lawsuit seems frivolous
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.