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
>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.