red bull controversy case study

• Business Business Topics Big Shots Startups Brand Games Juicy Scams Under Business
• Finance Finance Topics News Platter Tax Club Macro Moves Your Money Under Finance
• Invest Invest Topics Stock Market Financial Ratios Investor's Psychology Mutual Funds Under Invest

Trending Topics

When red bull didn’t give you wings.

Abhishek Sahoo

Created on 20 Mar 2021

Wraps up in 6 Min

Read by 67.9k people

Updated on 16 Nov 2023

"Red Bull gives you wings." - did this ad slogan influence you to try out the drink? Yeah? That's awesome as long as you don't take it literally. And once you do, things can get seriously awkward. That's exactly what happened in the US when a person filed a suit against Red Bull for not giving him 'wings'! Sounds ridiculous? Ya, we know. But it's how it is.

However, that's not entirely the case. You know, the devil's in the details. So, let's dive into this $13 Mn Red Bull fiasco!

But before that, let's have a glance over the company.

A brief about Red Bull

Red Bull is an energy drink offered by Red Bull GmbH, an Austrian private company founded in 1984. It's the brainchild of Austrian entrepreneur Dietrich Mateschitz (it's okay, we also couldn't pronounce it) and Thai businessman Chaleo Yoovidhya . Also, so that you know, the founders are among the top two richest persons in their respective countries.

Besides Red Bull, the company also distributes and markets other drinks like Simply Cola, etc., but Red Bull is the company's forte. The company's revolutionary energy drink Red Bull was originally the Thai truckers' sleep-depriving drink, named Krating Daeng. It was introduced to the European markets in 1987, and the rest is history. Taking the youth by storm, it made its footmark in the US in 1997, and within a year, it had already captured a whopping 75% of the US market! Wotta journey!!

Since then, there has been no looking back. After expanding its markets across 171 countries, the company sold 5.2 billion cans of Red Bull in 2012, thereby making it the world's most-consumed energy drink. And it didn't stop there. In 2019, when the world population reached 7.7 billion, Red Bull sold 7.5 billion cans, meaning almost one can for every person on earth! Shocked? We, too, are!

By the way, if you're aware, you would have known that Red Bull has been famous (or infamous, depending) for its widely popular advertisement -- "Red Bull gives you wings." And that's our matter of discussion today.

The advertisement - a metaphor or a deception?

Source: Red Bull advertisement

So, this is the advertisement we're talking about. Wait, don't tell us, you're also feeling like Red Bull literally meant it gives you wings! No, please.

Basically, this was just a very clever bit of branding technique, indicating high Caffeine content. Red Bull states that a 250ml can of its energy drink contains about 80mg of Caffeine, the same amount as contained in a cup of coffee. And being an energy drink, they charged a premium over a cup of coffee.

Anyway, how does Caffeine relate to wings, you ask? Well, first read this note from healthline.com regarding the effects of Caffeine -- "Caffeine acts as a central nervous system stimulant. When it reaches your brain, the most noticeable effect is alertness. You'll feel more awake and less tired, so it's a common ingredient in medications to treat or manage drowsiness, headaches, and migraines."

Learn the Right Way to Buy and Hold with  Coffee Can Investing

So, when Red Bull said it "gives you wings", what it basically meant was that it stimulates your nervous system, reduces drowsiness, and makes you feel cool and active. Thus, you feel light and energetic. And it does, isn't it? Many even take it as a lite version of hard drinks! Gosh! So, now you know it didn't literally give you wings. Rather, it is a metaphor (a word that carries a different underlying meaning and not its literal interpretation).

And what did Red Bull plan to achieve, you ask? See, Red Bull's niche target market is the youth, and the youth wants mystery and vigour in all endeavours. Therefore, in a bid to entice the youth, they came up with this brilliant ad. As intended, the plane took off and the result... Red Bull became the most consumed energy drink in the world.

Okay, if this was just a metaphor, where was the deception part? Under what grounds was the suit filed? And who filed it? Well, let's explore.

Benjamin Careathers v. Red Bull North America, Inc.

Benjamin Careathers got no chill! Yes, that's our man. He, joined by others later, filed a case against Red Bull in 2013.

Although we did not attend the court proceedings, we feel Mr Benjamin would have said something like this -- " Your honour, I have been drinking Red Bull for over 10 years. It tastes a slight bit bitter, but that's okay. I don't have any complaints regarding its taste. But my problem is with the wings thing. Your honour, after I drink Red Bull, I don't feel like flying. Don't mistake me for being foolish; I am not taking it literally. I just mean that it doesn't make me feel so athletic and energetic. Oh, and if you think that's my problem, then NO. There is a problem with the advertisement itself. They advertise that a can of Red Bull contains the same amount of Caffeine as a cup of coffee. But facts state that a 250ml can of Red Bull contains about 80mg of Caffeine, which is much less than a smaller 207ml of coffee that contains as much as 150mg of Caffeine. And hence, I think the ad is deceptive and misleading. Thus, the premium paid over a cup of coffee also doesn't make any sense. I ought to be compensated for my expectations and consumption. "

Metaphorically put, Red Bull doesn't give you any more 'wings' than a cup of coffee, right?

And the cost-premium bit was also true. For instance, a 356ml cup of premium store Starbucks coffee costs around $1.85 and would contain far more (over 4 times) caffeine than a 250ml can of Red Bull, which costs around $2.19. Eh, gotcha?

In this case, the court ruled in favour of Benjamin and other plaintiffs and, thus, ordered Red Bull a class settlement for all victims. It agreed to pay a total of $13 Mn as compensation to the customers who felt cheated by drinking its energy drink in the last decade. The compensation per victim was a cash payout of up to $10 or two Red Bull products worth $15 combined, with the company handling the shipping charges. This means the higher the number of victims, the lesser the share of compensation of each. And that's how it went.

Also, read  Dollar vs Rupee . Where to Invest?

The aftermath of the Red Bull case

Though Red Bull stood up to the claim settlement, it didn't admit its wrongdoing. Or so to say, Red Bull still believed in its' wings'. This is what the company officially stated -- "Red Bull settled the lawsuit to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation . However, Red Bull maintains that its marketing and labelling have always been truthful and accurate, and denies any and all wrongdoing or liability."

They underestimated the power of customers, and therefore, they had to cough up another $850,000 CAD in another similar case filed in 2019 in the same compensation structure.

And like Bill Gates says, "Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning." This time, they realised and were cautioned. And thus, they changed their ad slogan to "Red Bull gives you wiiings." This was another clever shot, whereby this time, none could sue Red Bull because there won't be any dictionary meaning of 'wiiings' (with 3 i's), while it would still sound like 'wings'! A superb idea, indeed.

Source: Red Bull website

And now you know what's all about Red Bull's $13 Mn fiasco. Yeah?

The bottom line

By the way, Red Bull wasn't the only brand that was dragged to court in such a false advertisement case. New Balance was similarly sued in 2011 for falsely claiming that its toning shoes burnt calories, Dabur was sued in 2017 for the deceptive advertisement of its tal oil doing "dugni tezi se sharirik vikas", L'Oreal was sued in 2014 for misleading customers that its skincare products were "clinically proven" to cause "visibly younger skin in just 7 days", and there were many other such instances.

You see, there is a very thin line separating clever and notorious. And the same works for marketing as well. A clever deceptive marketing tactic may enable a brand to take off, but in the end, if customers catch it, you won't be spared! Because, ultimately, the customer is the only real boss. And as Milton Hershey quotes --

"Give them quality. That is the best kind of advertising."

So, what do you think? Tell us in the comments below.

How was this article?

Like, comment or share.

An Article By -

49 Post Likes

Abhishek has a love for numbers and words alike. With a passion for finance and interest in writing, he’s blending both as a Finance Content Writer at Finology. He writes to simplify the toughest of the technical stuff for readers and tries to make the reading exercise interesting. He is a CA Final candidate and aims to pursue a management degree from a top-notch b-school.

Topics under this Article

Share your thoughts.

We showed you ours, now you show us yours (opinions 😉)

Why not start a conversation?

Looks like nobody has said anything yet. Would you take this as an opportunity to start a discussion or a chat fight may be.

Related Articles

More titbits on the go

Narayana Health: The factory of Cheapest Heart Surgeries

25 Nov 2021

16.2k views

Dixon Technologies Explained: Revenue and Red Flags

02 Aug 2024

Trent Ltd.’s Misbu: A New Tata Enterprise Entering the Fashion World

20 Apr 2024

25.4k views

Stock Market

Is Your Portfolio Volatility-Proof? A Financial Stress Test

27 Mar 2024

Under Business

"A few" articles ain't enough! Explore more under this category.

The Rise, Fall, and Revival of Cafe Coffee Day: A Debt Story

24 Aug 2024

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Explained: A Master of Acquisitions

17 Aug 2024

Infosys Explained: Is Another Controversy Brewing?

12 Aug 2024

Byju's Explained: Is the Start-up Going Bankrupt?

05 Aug 2024

12.1k views

Share this post

Or copy the link to this post -

https://insider.finology.in/business/when-red-bull-didnt-give-wings

🤩 Reading never goes out of fashion.

You need to login to continue. Let's take your love for reading to the next level with:

• Custom feed of your chosen topics.
• Personal library of Liked & Bookmarked articles.
• Live to & fro comments with Insider.

By using our website, you consent to the use of cookies and tracking technologies as outlined in our privacy policy.

Red Bull Settles False Advertising Case for $13M

Red Bull GmnH has agreed to a $13 million class action settlement in a false advertising lawsuit filed in a New York federal court alleging that the beverage maker’s energy drinks had more benefits than coffee.

If approved, Class members will have the option of a $10 cash reimbursement or $15 in Red Bull products. Red Bull will also have seven days from the approval date to put $6.5 million toward the settlement, according to the class action lawsuit motion filed by Plaintiffs Benjamin Careathers, David Wolf, and Miguel Almaraz.

The $13 million class action settlement fund will cover the cash reimbursement, the Red Bull products sent out to Class members, the expenses of the Class action settlement administrator, for advertising the settlement to potential class members via various media resources, and attorney fees.

The Class will include anyone who bought “at least one Red Bull beverage dating back to Jan. 1, 2002.”

The plaintiffs are also asking that the alleged false advertising campaign by Red Bull be discontinued.

“Beyond monetary relief, although Red Bull denies wrongdoing and believes that its marketing materials and advertising have always been truthful and accurate, it has voluntarily withdrawn or revised the marketing claims challenged by plaintiffs, and will confirm that all future claims about the functional benefits from consuming its products will be medically and/or scientifically supported,” the plaintiffs said in their motion.

This agreement was made through extensive meetings between attorneys and a mediator.

False marketing

Careathers filed his Red Bull class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 16, 2013. Wolf and Almaraz filed their class action lawsuit against the beverage company on Feb. 27, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The California lawsuit was later “transferred and consolidated with the New York Action.”

The plaintiffs allege that “Red Bull falsely marketed its energy drinks as providing certain functional benefits and thereby induced consumers into purchasing and/or paying a ‘premium’ for those drinks over alternate sources of caffeine.”

In spite of the class action settlement agreement, “Red Bull denies all wrongdoing or liability, and is prepared to vigorously defend its marketing claims if the litigation proceeds.”

Careathers, Wolf and Almaraz all claim to be “longtime consumer[s] of Red Bull beverages.”

They claim that that “Red Bull labeling and marketing has deceived customers.”

“The thrust of the allegations herein is that the functional benefits of consuming Red Bull are not superior to the benefits from ingesting an equivalent amount of alternate sources of caffeine, and that consumers have been misled by Red Bull advertising to believe the drink is a superior source of energy beyond caffeine,” the plaintiffs explain in the motion.

The plaintiffs are represented by Benedict Morelli, David Ratner, Adam Deutsch, Jeremy Alters and Matthew Moore of Morelli Alters Ratner LLP and Frederic Fox, Justin Farar, Laurence King and Linda Fong of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

The defendants are represented by Kenneth Plevan, Jordan Feirman, Jason Russell and Hillary Hamilton of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP.

The Red Bull False Advertising Class Action Lawsuits are Benjamin Careathers v. Red Bull North America Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-00369, and David Wolf et al. v. Red Bull GmbH, Case No. 1:13-cv-08008, both in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Find an Attorney

Read more legal news.

Events for Young Lawyers

Myra Hamilton, Esq. Honored with Prestigious 2024 Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award

The Importance of Expert Witnesses in Criminal Defense Trials

Legal Rights in the Workplace: Workplace Discrimination and Harassment

Challenges in Employment Law: Recent Trends and Cases

Empowering Legal Professionals: Exclusive Law Conferences

Understanding Miranda Rights: What Every Criminal Defense Attorney Should Know

Prenuptial Agreements: What You Need to Know Before Marriage

Workers' Compensation Claims: Know Your Rights and Options

Settlement Fund Payouts for Abuse at Youth Development Center in NH Reach $66M

Federal Judge Rejects Trump’s Bid for New Trial in E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case, Upholds $83M Judgment

$44M Awarded in a Wrongful Death Lawsuit of an ISU Graduate Killed While Driving for Lyft

'Red Bull does not give you wings': Company settles $US13mil lawsuit over false advertising claims

Red bull has agreed to pay $us13 million to settle a class action lawsuit over alleged false advertising of its energy drinks..

Austrian beverage energy drink cans of Red Bull are pictured in Vienna on March 16, 2013. (ALEXANDER KLEIN/AFP/Getty)

Share this with family and friends

Recommended for you

The US media's Olympics medal tally move that's raised eyebrows

2024 Paris Olympic Games

'Like ants on my skin': Many women are retiring years before they want to. This may be why

Racism is the life expectancy factor that Australians don't want to talk about

Indigenous Health

Boxer Imane Khelif addresses Olympics gender row as she reaches gold-medal bout

The invisible reason airline Rex is struggling and grocery prices are so high

Revealed: How fraudsters steal from Australians through a myGov 'side entrance'

Fraud and false statements

Why you might face a new choice when getting your next COVID-19 vaccine

Meet Raygun, the Australian academic who made history in Olympic breaking

Get sbs news daily and direct to your inbox, sign up now for the latest news from australia and around the world direct to your inbox..

Morning (Mon–Fri)

Afternoon (Mon–Fri)

By subscribing, you agree to SBS’s terms of service and privacy policy including receiving email updates from SBS.

SBS World News

Red Bull Will Pay $10 To Customers Disappointed The Drink Didn’t Actually Give Them 'Wings'

“Red Bull gives you wings” has been the energy drink’s slogan for nearly two decades. Now the company has agreed to pay out more than $13 million after settling a US class action lawsuit that accused Red Bull of making false and misleading advertising claims, according to the  drinks industry publication BevNet . 

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.

If the proposed settlement is passed by the US District Court of the Southern District of New York, where a hearing will take place in March 2015, Red Bull will be required to pay $6.5 million into a settlement fund within a week.

The settlement says Red Bull will reimburse customers disappointed the energy drink hasn’t lived up to their expectations with either a check for $10 or a voucher for $15 worth of Red Bull products. This could prove costly, as the class action suit covers the millions of people who have bought at least one can of Red Bull over the past 10 years.

People wanting to make a claim can fill out a form, which can be found here , or  by calling (877) 495-1568, or by posing their completed form to Class Action Settlement Administrator at Energy Drink Settlement, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 35123 Seattle, WA 98124-5123.

The suit was brought about by a number of Red Bull drinkers, one of whom said he had been drinking the product since 2002 but had seen no improvement in his athletic performance.

The suit says of Red Bull’s marketing:

Such deceptive conduct and practices mean that [Red Bull’s] advertising and marketing is not just ‘puffery,’ but is instead deceptive and fraudulent and is therefore actionable.

Red Bull released this statement following the settlement:

Red Bull settled the lawsuit to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation. However, Red Bull maintains that its marketing and labeling have always been truthful and accurate, and denies any and all wrongdoing or liability.

While Red Bull denies wrongdoing, the company has voluntarily withdrawn and revised the marketing claims challenged in court, Bevnet says .

NOW WATCH:  11 Things You Didn't Know About Red Bull

• Main content

• Scholarships
• Testimonials
• Our Attorneys
• Car Accidents
• Truck Accidents
• Motorcycle Accidents
• Wrongful Death
• Construction Accidents
• Medical Malpractice
• Nursing Home Abuse
• Personal Injury Lawyer
• Defective Drug
• Employment Discrimination
• Commercial Litigation
• Sexual Harassment Lawyers
• All Practice Areas
• New York Personal Injury Lawyer
• Albany NY Personal Injury Lawyer
• Buffalo NY Personal Injury Lawyer
• Hempstead NY Personal Injury Lawyer
• Huntington NY Personal Injury Lawyer
• Long Beach NY Personal Injury Lawyer
• Long Island NY Personal Injury Lawyer
• Mount Vernon NY Personal Injury Lawyer
• White Plains NY Personal Injury Lawyer
• New Rochelle NY Personal Injury Lawyer
• View All Areas

Red Bull Puts Up $13m To Settle False Advertising Suit

Morelli Law Firm has filed a motion seeking class certification for settlement purposes only to resolve its false advertising class action suit against Red Bull GmbH (“Red Bull”). The Austrian-based energy drink company – famous for its promise to “give you wings”—agreed to pay over $13 million to settle a proposed class action that accused the company and its U.S. subsidiaries of falsely advertising that its energy drinks enhance performance, concentration and reaction speed, allowing the company to charge a premium price for its product. In fact, Plaintiffs allege that Red Bull doesn’t provide any more benefit to consumers than a cup of coffee.

Have You Been Injured In An Accident? Contact Morelli Law

According to a plaintiffs’ motion seeking court approval of the agreed-upon settlement terms, the settlement could potentially include millions of individuals who purchased at least one Red Bull over a period of more than 10 years and would provide class members with the option of a $10 cash reimbursement or two free Red Bull products with an approximate retail value of $15, with Red Bull agreeing to cover the shipping costs.

Read the full article Read the full article here .

Call or text 877-751-9800 or complete a Free Case Evaluation form

States Still Divided Over Same Sex Marriage

A New Orleans federal judge this week upheld Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriage, becoming the first decision to buck

Lawsuit Highlights Role Of Generic Drug Makers In Updating Safety Labeling

How fast does a generic drug maker have to update its product labeling to match changes to the equivalent brand-name

Preliminary Approval Granted For Red Bull Class Action Settlement

Morelli Law Firm can announce that the motion seeking court approval of the agreed-upon settlement terms in the class

Installation Of Positive Train Control & Dangers For Train Commuters

On May 12, a northbound Amtrak train from Washington, D.C. derailed and crashed in Philadelphia, PA at the Frankford

Let Our Personal Injury Attorneys Fight For You

If you’ve been injured or a loved one has been killed, you have rights under the law, and this includes the right to file a claim for compensation. A personal injury lawyer will communicate directly with the at-fault party’s insurers and negotiate a settlement that can get you back on track. Tell us about your situation so we can get started fighting for you.

• News & Analysis for the Beverage Industry

Red Bull: 'All future claims will be medically and/or scientifically supported'

Red Bull offers $13m to settle false advertising lawsuit; 'No way judge will approve this', says attorney

04-Aug-2014 - Last updated on 22-Jan-2021 at 16:40 GMT

• Email to a friend

Along with other F&B giants which have recently sought to settle false advertising cases (Kashi, Trader Joe's, PopChips, PepsiCo), Red Bull has not admitted liability, and says it is " prepared to vigorously defend its marketing claims if the litigation proceeds.” ​

However, it is also keen to avoid the  “uncertainty, risks, expenses and time investment” ​ of protracted litigation.

Marketing and labeling changes ​:  ‘All future claims will be medically and/or scientifically supported’ ​

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, which has been agreed by the plaintiffs and Red Bull but is still subject to approval by the court, consumers who purchased any Red Bull product in the US between January 1, 2002 and the settlement date would be entitled to $10 cash reimbursement or $15 worth of Red Bull products.

Red Bull has also voluntarily " withdrawn or revised marketing claims challenged by the plaintiffs" ​, although it doesn't specify which ones (multiple claims are referenced in the complaints).

“Red Bull believes that its marketing and labeling directed at United States consumers have always been entirely truthful and accurate," ​said the firm in court papers filed on July 31.  "Red Bull further confirms that all future claims about the functional benefits of its products will be medically and/or scientifically supported.” ​

Attorney: Settlement could be attempt by Red Bull to pre-empt future consumer fraud and product liability litigation ​

But in context, the sum was arguably “ comparatively ​ paltry ​” given that it could be regarded as an attempt by Red Bull to pre-empt consumer fraud or product liability lawsuits it may face down the road, he claimed.

He added: “ This is all about the lawyers getting paid ($4.5m), while Red Bull tries to forestall all actions by other prospective plaintiffs.” ​

‘No way is the Judge going to approve this’ ​

Given that the plaintiffs allege that Red Bull has misrepresented the safety as well as the functionality of its products - something which Red Bull vigorously denies - it also seemed odd that class members would be offered samples as well as refunds, he added.

Meanwhile, the fact that the settlement does not spell out which claims Red Bull is dropping is unusual, he said, noting that the firm would likely have altered its marketing regardless of this case in anticipation of legal threats from other quarters - including states attorneys - which have already sued rivals Monster and 5-Hour Energy in recent months.

“ If you can say that you’ve already stopped the claims that are being challenged in these matters, then you’ve got sort of a free pass. ​

“Add on to this the fact that if the State attorney generals sue, they will be suing on behalf of their citizens to get restitution and injunctive relief. If Red Bull has already paid a settlement that purports to bind all Red Bull purchasers for $13m, then maybe these State AGs get nothing for their citizens. It’s an argument.” ​

He added:  “No way is the judge going to approve this… I suspect that the lawyers in any current or pending product liability cases will also weigh in against the settlement.” ​

CSPI attorney: One thing immediately jumps out at me, and it is fatal to the settlement ​

Stephen Gardner, director of litigation at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, added: " O ​ ne thing immediately jumps out at me, and it is fatal to the settlement ​."

In short, he said, " it ​ would release all claims by any Red Bull purchasers, not just the claims covered by the lawsuit. As a principle of class settlements, an overbroad release is always a negative. But here, although the settlement says it does not release “personal injury claims unrelated to the marketing or labeling of Red Bull products,” that does not suffice, b ​ ecause the marketing and labeling of Red Bull products will almost invariably be relevant to a personal injury claim." ​

Class counsel should never have agreed to it ​

He added: "I’ve served as an expert witness providing testimony about the adequacy of class settlements in perhaps 20 cases. I would testify that this over breadth of the release is fatal to the settlement. It may be clever lawyering by Red Bull counsel but class counsel [ie. the plaintiff's attorneys] should never have agreed to it." ​

Plaintiff: Red Bull doesn’t give you any more wings than a cup of coffee ​

Benjamin Careathers filed his lawsuit against Red Bull in the Southern District of New York in January 2013, while David Wolf and Miguel Almaraz filed a near identical suit in February in the Central District of California. The two cases were later consolidated in New York.

Careathers argues that Red Bull - an 8.4oz can of which contains 80mg of caffeine, plus taurine, glucuronolactone, B vitamins, sucrose and glucose (click  HERE ​) - is falsely marketed as delivering functional benefits above and beyond what consumers might obtain from “ a ​  simple cup of coffee or a caffeine pill ​”, thereby inducing shoppers to pay over the odds for a product that does not deliver on its promises.

“The Red Bull defendants prey upon consumers by promising that, among other things, ‘Red Bull gives you wings’ by proving a mixture of ingredients that when ingested, significantly improve a consumer’s physiological and mental performance beyond what a simple cup of coffee or caffeine pill would do," ​   ​he alleged.

Plaintiffs: 'Red Bull's advertising and marketing is not just puffery but is instead deceptive and fraudulent' ​

Citing a series of clinical studies showing that the benefits attributed to energy drinks such as Red Bull are likely derived from caffeine alone, and not their “ unique” ​formulas, he added:

“ There is no genuine scientific research and there are no scientifically reliable studies in existence that support the extraordinary claims of defendants that Red Bull branded energy drinks provide more benefit to consumers than a cup of coffee. ​

“Such deceptive conduct and practices mean that defendants’ advertising and marketing is not just puffery but is instead deceptive and fraudulent and is therefore actionable.” ​

A Red Bull spokeswoman told FoodNavigator-USA:  "Red Bull settled the lawsuit to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation. However, Red Bull maintains that its marketing and labeling have always been truthful and accurate, and denies any and all wrongdoing or liability. Per your question, we will continue to use ​[the marketing slogan]  'Red Bull Gives You Wings'." ​

*The cases are: Benjamin Careathers v. Red Bull North American Inc. et al,   ​13-cv-00369; and   ​David Wolf et al. v. Red Bull GmbH et al. , ​13-cv-08008.

Related news

• From Red Bull to Big Red: Beverage industry veteran talks energy, classic soda and why Sparkling Ice should inspire us all

Related products

Guide to Choosing the Optimal Wine & Spirits Packaging

Content provided by Fres-co System USA, Inc. | 28-Aug-2024 | Insight Guide

In the wine and spirits market, packaging is almost as important as the product itself.

Functional acids with added value in effervescent beverage tabs

Content provided by Jungbunzlauer | 15-Apr-2024 | White Paper

Effervescent formulations are commonly used in pharmaceutical, food and non-food applications.

Life is better with more fizz

Content provided by CO2Sustain | 12-Mar-2024 | Product Brochure

We make carbonated soft drinks fizzier for longer, so your consumers enjoy the best possible drink experience from their first to very last sip.

Uniting Flavor & Function in Dairy Beverages

Content provided by Virginia Dare Extract Co Inc | 20-Feb-2024 | White Paper

As demand for functional beverages grows, dairy’s innate nutritional benefits and creamy sensory experience make it a compelling choice for consumers.

Related suppliers

• Döhler GmbH
• Fres-co System USA, Inc.
• Guide to Choosing the Optimal Wine & Spirits Packaging Fres-co System USA, Inc. | Download Insight Guide
• Maximise ROI: Free Guide to HPS Pigging Technology Hygienic Pigging Systems Ltd | Download Insight Guide
• Life is better with more fizz CO2Sustain | Download Product Brochure

Upcoming editorial webinars

• 24 Sep 2024 Tue Webinar Decarbonising Supply Chains at the Source
• 25 Sep 2024 Wed Webinar Eco-friendly Production from Farm to Fork
• 26 Sep 2024 Thu Webinar New Tech and Novel Ingredients for a Sustainable Future
• 08 Oct 2024 Tue Webinar State of the Market
• 15 Oct 2024 Tue Webinar Cognitive Health

Promotional features

BeverageDaily

• Advertise with us
• Apply to reuse our content
• Press Releases – Guidelines
• Contact the Editor
• Report a technical problem
• Why Register?
• Whitelist our newsletters
• Editorial Calendar

Red Bull settles false advertising lawsuit for $13M

Redbull gives you... a settlement

Social sharing.

It turns out a can of sugar-laden energy drink may not spontaneously make you sprout wings after all.

According to court documents filed in New York Federal Court, Europe-based energy drink company Red Bull has agreed to pay out up to $13 million US in compensation to settle a class-action suit launched by an upset customer who says the company uses false advertising to promote its product.

"The defendant's prodigious advertising marketing and promotional spending has been used to mislead customers into believing that Red Bull is a superior product worthy of a premium price and has the ability to 'give you wings' and provide energy and vitality," reads the complaint brought forward by New York resident Benjamin Careathers, who has been drinking the product since 2002.

Although it contains many ingredients that the company claims are stimulants, the active ingredient is caffeine. The company makes those claims despite mounting evidence that its eponymous product contains no more stimulation than could be found from any other source of caffeine. A 250-ml can of Red Bull contains about 80 mg of caffeine. That's less than other caffeine fixes, including coffee, a 207-ml cup of which can contain as much as 150 mg of caffeine.

"Even a 12-ounce [356-ml] serving of Starbucks coffee costs $1.85 and would contain far more caffeine than a regular serving of Red Bull," which has a suggested retail price of no less than $2.19 a can, the complaint reads.

"Despite the lack of any reported scientific support for a claim that Red Bull provides more benefit to consumers than a caffeine tablet or cup of coffee, defendants continue to market the product as a superior source of energy worthy of a premium price," another court filing alleges.

Company defends product

For its part, the company defends its marketing claims, with a spokesman for its Canadian division telling CBC News that "Red Bull settled this lawsuit to avoid the unpredictability and high costs of litigating in the U.S. Red Bull’s marketing has always been witty, truthful and accurate," the spokesman said, adding that the settlement applies to U.S. customers only.

The settlement includes a cash payout of up to $10 to anyone who has purchased a Red Bull product in the last decade. Instead of cash, recipients can choose to receive their payout in two Red Bull products worth up to $15 combined, with the company handling the shipping costs.

Red Bull has also agreed to pay up to $4.75 million in legal costs associated with the settlement, which will not come out of the payout funds. But the payout will be capped at $13 million, which means the more people apply to be included in the settlement, the less each will be paid out.

The company has set up a website , where Red Bull users can fill out a form to be included in the settlement. No proof of payment is necessary, but there's a deadline of May 2015 to submit an application.

The suit alleges that since launching in North America more than a decade ago, Red Bull has spent more than  $2 billion on marketing its product in the U.S., including $364 million in a single year, 2009. 

Related Stories

• Energy drink use among youth topic of 'dialogue session'
• Calgary students must barter Red Bulls in travel Europe contest

• More Blog Popular
• Who's Who Legal
• Instruct Counsel
• My newsfeed
• Save & file
• View original
• Follow Please login to follow content.

add to folder:

• My saved (default)

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Find out more about Lexology or get in touch by visiting our About page.

Red Bull drops famous slogan after settlement of false advertising suit

The once popular Red Bull slogan, “Red Bull gives you wings,” is now a thing of the past. Red Bull was sued for false and deceptive advertising over its use of the slogan and its advertising campaign. The lawsuit, brought as a class action, alleged that Red Bull’s campaign promised consumers they would experience increased performance, concentration and reaction speed. The proponents of the lawsuit claimed, however, that Red Bull offers little more than a traditional soda. Red Bull decided to settle the lawsuit and offer refunds to Red Bull customers rather than proceed with litigation. It has agreed to pay out a maximum of $13 million in claims, at a maximum of $10 per claim.

This lawsuit is not unique; other companies have come under fire for promising certain results that their products don’t or can’t deliver. Whether the benefits outweigh the risks of such advertising campaigns is for the company to decide. For more, click  here.

Filed under

• Media & Entertainment
• Bricker & Eckler LLP
• False advertising

Popular articles from this firm

Frequently asked questions regarding supplemental executive retirement plans (serps) *, loan modifications: the lender’s perspective *, the aia document b101-2007 owner-architect agreement - who has rights to the instruments of service *, submittals: things you always wanted to know, but were afraid to ask *, who is responsible for compliance and compliance reporting *.

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected] .

Related practical resources PRO

• How-to guide How-to guide: The legal framework for resolving disputes in England and Wales (UK)
• Checklist Checklist: Considerations prior to issuing court proceedings (UK)
• Checklist Checklist: Online advertising directed to children (USA)

Related research hubs

Red Bull Loses Its Wings To STING In Trademark Infringement

Contributor.

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgement 1 in the case titled as RED BULL AG vs. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT LTD & ANR , refused to provide protection to Red Bull's registered tagline 'VITALIZES BODY AND MIND' in a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed against Pepsico for the use of the tagline 'STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY' for the energy drink 'Sting'.

The Plaintiff claimed that it had been manufacturing and marketing its energy drink under the trademark 'Red Bull' and had been using the tagline 'VITALIZES BODY AND MIND' since 1987. The said tagline is registered in India since 2010 with effect from 2004 in class 32, and 73 other countries around the world.

The Plaintiff claimed that the usage of the aforesaid mark has become a source identifier of the Plaintiff's products and on account of long and extensive usage, it had acquired distinctiveness in relation to its products. The Plaintiff also stated that it had spent enormous amounts on the marketing of its product in relation to the aforesaid tagline and enjoys the dominant market share in respect of energy drinks all over the world, including India.

Submissions made by the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff contended that Defendants' launched their energy drink STING in India in 2017 with the tagline STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY., which was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered tagline 'VITALIZES BODY AND MIND', wherein the words BODY and MIND have been copied by the Defendants, whereas the words STIMULATES and ENERGIZES are both synonyms of the term VITALIZES as used in the Plaintiff's tagline. Therefore, the Defendant's tagline was conceptually identical to the Plaintiff's registered mark and had been used by the Defendants with mala fide and dishonest intention, as the same has not been not used by the Defendants anywhere in the world.

The Plaintiff placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. 2 ; Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Allied Blender & Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. 3 ; and Anil Verma v. R.K. Jewelers SK Group & Ors. 4

Submissions made by the Defendants

The Defendants drew a comparison between the getup and layout of the cans of the products of both the parties and contended that they are totally different, therefore no action of passing off could be made out.

With regard to the claim of infringement, the Defendants contended that the exclusive right to use the mark under Section 28 of the Act, can be averred only if the registration is valid and the same is subject to other provisions of the Trade Marks Act.

Defendants filed a rectification petition against the said tagline registration of the Plaintiff, on the ground of it being in contravention of Section 9 of the Act, alleging that the tagline was completely descriptive and the Plaintiff is using the same in a descriptive matter. Therefore, registration ought not to have been granted by the Trade Marks Registry in terms of Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.

Defendants further averred that they are selling their drink under their registered trademark STING and the tagline was used only in a descriptive manner and no registration had been sought in respect thereof, as a trademark. Hence, there was no case of injunction made out under Section 29 of the Act.

The Defendants took the defence of Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trade Marks Act, placing reliance upon the Division Bench judgments of this Court in 'Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited' 5 and 'Stockley Van Camp, Inc. v. Heinz India Private Limited'. 6

In addition, the Defendants also submitted that the suit is hit by delay and laches as the product of the Defendant was launched in the Indian Market in October 2017, whereas the suit was only filed by the Plaintiff in August 2018, after the Defendants had established their presence in the market.

Plaintiff's Submissions in the Rejoinder

The Plaintiff contented that its tagline is not descriptive and is rather used an imaginative phrase. It also averred that as per the terms of Section 31 of the Act, the registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of its validity and prima facie registration has to be assumed to be valid. Further, Defendant's use of the tagline is not in a descriptive manner, as alleged.

Court's Observations and Order

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court, made the following observations and held:

Trademark Passing Off

In regards to the case of Passing off, the Hon'ble Court stated that the basic premise for passing off, is deception caused on account of the Defendant attempting to show its goods as that of the Plaintiff. The Hon'ble Court relying on the case of Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd. 7 , stated that common law remedy of passing off restrains a Defendant from riding on the reputation and goodwill earned by a Plaintiff, being the prior user/owner of a distinctive mark. The purpose of an action of passing off is to prevent confusion and deception amongst consumers and the public at large.

Comparison of Plaintiff's and Defendants' Products

After referring to a comparison of the products being sold by both the parties, the Hon'ble Court noted that there is no similarity between the two products and that the layout of the cans is totally different, therefore, no case for passing off was made out.

Trademark Infringement

The Hon'ble Court observed that the Defendants were using their tagline in a descriptive manner and not as a trademark, relying upon the principles laid down in 'Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited' and 'Stockley Van Camp, Inc. v. Heinz India Private Limited'. The Hon'ble Court noted that while the Plaintiff's tagline had been granted registration in India in 2010, the rights granted upon registration under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act are not absolute, and are therefore subject to other provisions of the act.

While making a reference to paragraph 10 of the plaint, the Hon'ble Court stated that it was a clear acknowledgement on behalf of the Plaintiff that the aforesaid tagline/mark had been used by the Plaintiff in a manner so as to describe the attributes or quality of its drink. The Hon'ble Court took a prima facie view that the tagline used by the Plaintiff was of a descriptive/laudatory character, which ought not to have been granted registration in view of Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.

While also noting that the Defendants had not sought any registration for their tagline and that the use of the said tagline was also in a descriptive/laudatory manner and not as a trademark, the Hon'ble Court was of the view that the Defendants would be entitled to protection under Section 30(2)(a) and Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act.

Delay and Laches

As for the issue pertaining to delay and laches, the Hon'ble Court observed that the Defendants had been selling their product now for a period of five years with the aforesaid impugned tagline and therefore the balance of convenience would be against the grant of interim injunction.

The said judgement is in appeal before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as is fixed for hearing on November 30, 2022.

Conclusion/Author's Comments

Though the Hon'ble Court has rightly observed in this case that there was no similarity in the two conflicting taglines, however, the reasoning given behind such conclusion that the 'Plaintiff has used the aforesaid tagline in a descriptive manner since it appears as a sentence on the can of the Plaintiff's product, wherein the first word 'VITALIZES' has the alphabet 'V' in capital letters and the sentence ends with a full stop, raises a pressing concern pertaining to the protection of registered trademarks in a descriptive phrase/tagline despite the fact that it may have acquired a distinctiveness and secondary meaning, as most taglines are descriptive in nature.

1 CS Comm 1092/2018

2 211 (2014) DLT 466 (DB)

3 221 (2015) DLT 359 (DB)

4 2019 (78) PTC 476 (Del).

5 174 (2010) DLT 279 (DB)

6 171 (2010) DLT 16

7 (2004) 6 SCC 145

For further information please contact at S.S Rana & Co. email: [email protected] or call at (+91- 11 4012 3000). Our website can be accessed at www.ssrana.in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Intellectual Property

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

New Jersey: 201-518-9999     New York: 917-717-5007

Red Bull does not, we repeat, does NOT, give you wings. #tbt

On Behalf of  Lurie|Strupinsky, LLP  | Mar 11, 2021 |  Firm News  |

Red Bull Doesn’t Actually Give You Wings. Oh, Canada!

For over 20 years, the popular energy drink used “Red Bull gives you wings” as its catchy slogan, but in 2014, Red Bull agreed to pay out more than  thirteen million dollars  after settling a U.S. class action lawsuit that accused the company of false advertising. Consumers believed (claimed) that the popular energy drink would actually give them wings, as advertised.

One energy drink consumer argued that after ten years of drinking Red Bull, he neither had wings nor any enhanced athletic or intellectual performance.

According to the suit, “Even though there is a lack of genuine scientific support for a claim that Red Bull branded energy drinks provide any more benefit to a consumer than a cup of coffee, the Red Bull defendants persistently and pervasively market their product as a superior source of ‘energy’ worthy of a premium price over a cup of coffee or other sources of caffeine.”

Shortly thereafter, Canadian consumers followed suit. Plaintiff Michael Atter claimed that Red Bull made false declarations regarding the product’s usefulness. Attar argued that the beverage company violated the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by claiming that Red Bull was more effective than a lower-priced offering, like a cup of coffee.

Red Bull again paid out a large settlement to unhappy Canadian consumers. According to Dished Vancouver, Red Bull GmbH paid around $640,000 in a class action settlement. Canadian consumers who bought Red Bull in the last twelve years may receive ten dollars from the settlement.

There is, of course, important law behind this, protecting consumers from false advertising. Unfortunately, silly cases like this can clog up the court system, and make light of the need to police against unlawful business practices.

FIRM NEWS: Managing Partner Joshua Lurie Secures a Trial Victory in New Jersey

Right of Publicity for Models in Photographs is a Distinct Right, apart from Copyright

Vicky Cornell sues Soundgarden over Band Valuation

Smoking Is Cool

Pharma Companies Looking Ahead to Novel Vaccine IP

HHS Launches Investigation into Moderna’s Patented Vaccines’ Funding Sources

Election 2020 Legal Update

Haagen-Dazs Maker Sued for Falsely Advertising – dipped in “rich milk chocolate”

New website, schedule a case evaluation.

Contact us now!

Homepage FCE Form

By submitting this form, you agree to be contacted by our law firm, either by phone, text or by email.

Practice Areas

Business Law

Employment Law

Criminal Defense

Real Estate Law

Estate Planning Law

Civil Litigation

Free Consultation

Contact Information

New Jersey: 201-518-9999 New York: 917-717-5007

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Please visit the  Super Lawyers Selection Process  for a detailed description of the Super Lawyers selection methodology.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.

© Copyright 2023  |  All Rights Reserved  |  Lurie | Strupinsky, LLP   |  Powered By   Convert It Marketing     |    Privacy Policy

• Live on Sky
• Get Sky Sports
• Sky Mobile App
• Kick It Out
• Black Lives Matter
• British South Asians in Football

Formula 1 cost cap Q&A: What Red Bull are accused of, what's next, and how the FIA could punish team

With Red Bull and the FIA in a cost-cap standoff, we answer the key questions, such as how serious the offence is, what the punishments could be, what next and when...; F1 season continues with the United States GP on October 21-23, live on Sky Sports

By Matt Morlidge

Monday 17 October 2022 16:50, UK

The FIA confirming Red Bull's cost-cap guilt - but failing to provide details on the severity, the punishment or the timeframe - has left Formula 1 in limbo as we wait on what happens next for the sport's title leaders.

With the FIA mulling the penalties, Red Bull defending their case, and rival teams angry, it's an F1 saga that is set to continue - and Sky Sports has you covered with the answers to the key questions...

What exactly have Red Bull been found guilty of?

After weeks of speculation, the FIA ruled last Monday that Red Bull were guilty of a 'minor' breach of F1's cost cap, which debuted in 2021 to level the playing field and limit teams to spending a maximum of $145m per year.

• Brundle dissects Red Bull controversy | 'Punishment has to hurt'
• Red Bull guilty of 'minor' F1 cost cap breach | FIA mulls punishment

The word 'minor' means the team overstepped last year's cap by less than five per cent ($7.25m).

Aston Martin, who were previously rumoured to have also overspent, only committed a 'procedural' breach, which is related to filling out forms incorrectly - the same as Williams earlier this year.

• Carabao Cup LIVE! Forest-Newcastle penalties - then R3 draw
• Transfer Centre LIVE! Osimhen, Chiesa, Ugarte latest
• Liverpool transfer news: Barcelona make Bajcetic loan approach
• Chelsea transfers: Osimhen offered Saudi deal, Sterling talks continue
• Man Utd transfers: Ugarte having medical, McTominay exit close
• US Open LIVE! Dart crashes out, Gauff and Djokovic in action later
• Southampton agree fee with Arsenal for Ramsdale
• Liverpool agree deal for Juventus winger Chiesa
• Arsenal transfers: Palace close in on Nketiah
• EFL transfers: WBA battle Blades for winger
• Latest News

All seven other teams were issued with certificates of compliance.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

How much are Red Bull accused of overspending by?

The FIA has not disclosed how much Red Bull went over the budget cap. In theory, therefore, it could be a matter of thousands, or up to that $7.25m mark.

Brundle dissects cost cap controversy

FIA mulls punishment for Red Bull

It has been reported that Red Bull have not exceeded the limit by more than $2m, which is much less than rival teams were suggesting back at the Singapore GP. That, though, is all speculation until the FIA discloses more details.

What could the punishment be?

Like the figure above, the punishment is another key detail we just do not know, and a sporting infringement is not a black-and-white penalty like breaching the sport's technical regulations.

But we do know what the punishments could be.

What could F1 teams do with extra money?

It depends on just how much an F1 team overspent, but $7m is a hugely significant sum of money even to the larger teams, while even $2m would be enough for a crucial upgrade and potentially tenths of seconds.

The potential consequences for a 'minor' breach are a financial penalty and/or minor sporting penalty, and are as follows:

• A fine in an amount to be determined on a case by case basis
• A public reprimand
• A deduction of Constructors' Championship points awarded [for 2021 in this instance]
• A deduction of Drivers' Championship points awarded
• Suspension from one or more stages of a competition
• Limitations on ability to conduct aerodynamic or other testing; and/or reduction of the cost cap

The FIA has said it is "currently determining the appropriate course of action to be taken", and the likely first choice would be for an 'accepted breach agreement' to be reached between Red Bull and the cost cap panel.

If that is not agreed, then it's up to the panel - formed of between six and 12 independent judges - to decide a penalty.

So, Verstappen's 2021 title is in doubt?

It's incredibly unlikely. While a deduction of championship points is one of the penalties listed above - and Max Verstappen's already contentious advantage of only eight points over Lewis Hamilton last year means any meaningful points penalty would put his title at risk - that punishment was only really on the table if Red Bull had committed a 'material' breach, going over five per cent, as their rivals suspected.

For the minor offence, a fine or a public reprimand have been mooted so far, although a limit on testing or a reduction of a future cap could have more significant consequences down the road.

How have Red Bull responded?

Red Bull have staunchly protested their innocence over the last few weeks and that continued after the FIA's verdict.

The team said they noted the findings "with surprise and disappointment", insisting they have complied.

pic.twitter.com/gJvpe2i7mA — Oracle Red Bull Racing (@redbullracing) October 10, 2022

"Our 2021 submission was below the cost cap limit, so we need to carefully review the FIA's findings as our belief remains that the relevant costs are under the 2021 cost cap amount," they added.

What are their options? Can they contest?

Red Bull's first move is to ponder an accepted breach agreement, although while that would mean a milder punishment and could not be appealed, it would also require an acceptance of wrongdoing from the team.

Their stance so far has hinted they are not willing to do that.

"Despite the conjecture and positioning of others, there is of course a process under the regulations with the FIA which we will respectfully follow while we consider all the options available to us," said the team on Monday night.

If Red Bull cannot prove their numbers were correct, do not enter an accepted breach agreement, and are handed a punishment by the cost cap panel, they can appeal to the FIA's International Court of Appeals. If that fails, they could even escalate it further than that.

Can other teams protest?

No. The formal complaints of the cost cap submissions - which were back in March - could only be raised by other teams between January 1 and April 30 of this year.

Crucially, no complaints were made by teams by that April date, so while Mercedes and Ferrari in particular have raised concerns publicly about Red Bull's overspend, they did not do so to the FIA.

A team can also not protest another team's certification.

What have other teams said?

As Red Bull's guilt was confirmed on the Monday after the Japanese GP and there has been no race since, no team boss or other employee has spoken publicly about the breach.

However, a letter sent by McLaren boss Zak Brown last week to the FIA has been leaked.

In the letter, first reported by the BBC , Brown, while not mentioning Red Bull by name, is quoted as writing that the breach "constitutes cheating" and says that team has an "unfair advantage".

He also states that a financial penalty would not be sufficient, insisting "there clearly needs to be a sporting penalty" and that a punishment must be handed out sooner rather than later.

When will the punishment be revealed?

It has been over 300 days since last season's championship was decided and more than half a year since these numbers were first submitted, so the FIA is likely to want to get this settled as quickly as possible.

The speed of a resolution, however, likely depends on how hard Red Bull fight their corner.

If there is an accepted breach agreement, it could be quick and there would be no appeals. If not, this may drag on.

What are the implications for the future?

This is a big moment for the FIA as it looks to lay down the law on the new cost cap.

If Red Bull continue to be found guilty but get a mild punishment, rival teams will likely be up in arms and the integrity of the budget cap in future years is at risk.

If Red Bull fight their case and are proved to be correct, this also raises questions about the cost cap's findings.

"I think it's fundamentally a good system - in its early stages - and a cornerstone of why Formula 1 is so strong at the moment," said Sky Sports F1 pundit Martin Brundle.

"Stopping teams spending two and three hundred million has been achieved but now we need to tighten up the last few million to make it fair."

Does the five per cent overspend range need to change?

There have been calls by many in F1 for a change to the five per cent overspend, which as aforementioned could put penalties into the same bracket if there was an overspend by thousands, and by upwards of $7m.

Some have suggested this is lenient for teams who do overspend by a significant amount, making them only 'half guilty'.

"What seems absolutely crazy to me is that a minor breach can be up to five per cent overspend on the cost cap," added Brundle. "That is $7m and we know that is a massive upgrade on a car, maybe even a B-spec for some teams.

"That needs tightening up for starters, because what is the point in having $145m and then having this five per cent variant?

"It has got to be made clear that you stick to the cost cap or just under it or otherwise it is going to hurt."

• Upgrade Now

Stream the Premier League and 1000+ EFL games this season with NOW!

National & World Affairs

Where’s the beef.

Lecturer Louis Tompros discusses a recent lawsuit against a fast-food giant and the role class actions play in the U.S. legal system

Is Burger King selling you a Whopper of a tale? A juicy class action lawsuit filed in March 2023 alleges that the fast-food chain’s signature hamburger contains 35% less meat than the company’s ads suggest. On August 23, a federal judge in Florida allowed the lawsuit , Coleman et al v. Burger King Corporation , to move forward based on the company’s in-store marketing and menus. Filled with mouthwatering legal issues, the Burger King case is one of several class action suits filed by the same law firm, including similar cases against Arby’s, McDonald’s, Taco Bell, and Wendy’s, each alleging that the fast-food purveyors falsely represented the size of their meat-based products.

Intellectual property expert  Louis Tompros , a lecturer on law at Harvard and a partner at WilmerHale, says that class action false advertising lawsuits often, but not always, play an important role in compensating consumers and preventing companies from committing further harm. In a recent conversation, Tompros discussed the Burger King lawsuit, how class action lawsuits work, and the legal concept of “puffery” in advertising.

Harvard Law Today: At first glance, what is your impression of the case?

Louis Tompros: It’s a very interesting case and falls into a general category of false advertising class actions. Sometimes, consumer product class action cases serve an important purpose to keep advertising honest. Other times, the cases are a little bit more opportunistic, and have more to do with going after big pockets. This is an interesting one, because it involves advertising that is on the line between a pretty clear factual statement, and something that’s not a factual statement. If what Burger King was doing was falsely stating how many pounds of meat went into each burger, it’d be a straightforward false advertising claim. And you would imagine that Burger King would settle very quickly if the claims were false, or they would fight to the end if, in fact, the claims were true. What makes this interesting is that the claim that Burger King is making in its advertisement is fuzzier as to whether it really is or is not a factual claim. And it’s those kinds of cases, where the advertisement is somewhere between a clear factual claim and pure puffery, where you find some of the most interesting cases.

It reminds me of the Red Bull case from roughly 10 years ago. Red Bull had used the slogan “Red Bull gives you wings,” and a class action was brought against them, saying that people had been drinking Red Bull for a long time and never got actual wings. Ultimately, Red Bull settled that case for a very significant amount of money. That was interesting, as well, because “Red Bull gives you wings” is one of these factual statements that most people would think is a metaphor, and it was therefore on the line between a clearly provable, relevant, factual statement and one that is not so.

HLT: Now that the judge has restricted this to in-store advertising, could Burger King argue that the plaintiffs had already decided to go to and enter the restaurant, so they were clearly planning to make a purchase before they had a chance to be influenced?

Tompros: The plaintiffs will have to convince a jury that they were standing there in the store, they looked at the picture on the menu, and if the picture on the menu had shown the burger with the size of meat that it actually had, they would not have bought that burger. They don’t have to prove that the person would have walked out of the store, only that the person wouldn’t have bought that specific burger. Deciding what the truth is will be up to the jury.

“The plaintiffs will have to convince a jury that they were standing there in the store, they looked at the picture on the menu, and if the picture on the menu had shown the burger with the size of meat that it actually had, they would not have bought that burger.”

HLT: Would it matter if the plaintiffs had purchased the burgers before, and therefore had some foreknowledge of their actual size, regardless of the advertising?

Tompros: There’s a variety of different claims in this lawsuit, the two most prominent being false advertising and breach of contract. For the false advertising claim, it may matter if the customers had previously seen the same picture and bought the burgers, because that would tend to show that they were not deceived in a way that affected their purchasing decision. So, if you’re telling me that this burger that has a certain amount meat, and I buy it, I get the burger, and it has a smaller amount of meat, then I go back and I buy it again and again, by the 10th or 12th time, I know that the picture does not look like what I’m going to get. And so, it’s wrong for me to say that that picture influenced my purchasing decision.

In the contract case, what the plaintiffs will have to show is that the picture operated as an offer, that the offer was a very specific offer of a burger with a particular amount of meat, and that the customer accepted the offer by ordering and paying for it with that picture in front of them. If I were Burger King, and the same customer who saw the same picture bought the burger 10 different times in the past, I would argue that the contract, as informed by the party’s prior performance, did not include this larger amount of meat. So, yes, the fact that somebody bought one of these burgers before having seen the picture and didn’t complain about it may affect the outcome. It’s not dispositive. It just goes to their credibility when now they come in and say they wouldn’t have bought it if they had known that it was going to look like it did.

HLT: The supposed damage in this case for each plaintiff is less than the cost of one burger. Is there a minimum level of damage for which one can file a lawsuit?

Tompros: As a matter of principle, there’s no minimum amount that you can sue somebody for. That’s why we have things like small claims courts. You are allowed to bring a case for a small amount of money. But as a practical matter, it very often isn’t worth it, because the filing fees and the attorney’s fees often dwarf the value of the case. Usually, that means that when we’re talking about small amounts per customer, the case will need to involve a large number of people, which is why this case has been brought as a class action. Under the federal Class Action Fairness Act, most class actions must allege a total amount of harm of more than $5 million across the class. And the plaintiffs in this case did make that allegation. Another requirement is that there must be at least 100 people in the class, which the plaintiffs also allege.

One of the reasons why class actions exist is to address small amounts of harm affecting a large number of people. We want it to be possible to have some legal remedy for those harms. So, we have the class action procedure to allow for that. Just because something is not worth bringing the lawsuit over in an individual case, you don’t want to let somebody get away with doing it thousands and thousands, or even millions of times.

“One of the reasons why class actions exist is to address small amounts of harm affecting a large number of people.”

HLT: One of Burger King’s arguments is that everyone knows that “[f]ood in advertising is and always has been styled to make it look as appetizing as possible.” Where is the line between making a product as attractive as possible and false advertising?

Tompros: There is a concept in false advertising law known as puffery. Puffery is intended to attract more consumers rather than to intentionally deceive them about a fact. And, generally speaking, puffery is fine. Whereas intentional deception about a fact is false advertising and is improper. Let me give you a couple of examples. For decades, cereal companies have made advertisements where they show milk being poured into their cereal. If you actually pour milk into a bowl of cereal and try to film it, it doesn’t look very good because milk is kind of thin and it usually does gross things to the cereal. Those commercials for years have used glue instead of milk because it’s thicker and you get a gorgeous picture. Even in the context of fast food, there are photoshoots of burgers in which each sesame seed is very carefully glued on to the bun in a particular configuration to look very appetizing. And there are chemicals that look like water that are placed on the tomatoes to make them look like they’ve just been washed and are fresh and beautiful. And the cheese is sometimes replaced by icing or putty or something else.

So that kind of puffery has happened all the time. It is well established that it is not generally speaking false advertising, because false advertising has to convey a specific statement of fact. That’s why in the Burger King case, the plaintiffs are not alleging that the burger didn’t look generally like the photo, and they’re not alleging that the burger didn’t look as appetizing as the one in the photo. Both of those claims would have been rejected if Burger King had argued that the photos are just puffery. What the plaintiffs instead allege is a much more specific allegation that the ratio of meat and the size of meat to the rest of the burger was misrepresented. What the plaintiffs claim is that the photo was representing a fact about the size of the patty, and that that fact was false. And that’s the distinction here that matters.

“Puffery is intended to attract more consumers … generally speaking, puffery is fine. Whereas intentional deception about a fact is false advertising and is improper.”

HLT: What role do class action lawsuits play in the U.S. legal system?

Tompros: The fundamental purpose of class actions is to allow for the resolution of harms that happen in small amounts to a large number of people. And there have been some class actions that have been hugely important over the years. For example, the auto industry class actions of the 1970s were instrumental in making automobiles safer. And I think there’s general consensus that that was a good thing. They gave some financial redress to people who had been harmed. But more importantly, they resulted in the manufacture of safer automobiles and the auto industry taking more seriously things like recalls, because they know that they will be liable across the board for problems.

There have also been some class actions that have, in my view, been of somewhat questionable value. And here I think of, for example, the Red Bull class action from 2014, in which Red Bull did indeed change its advertising and no longer says “Red Bull gives you wings.” It’s not clear to me that that provided any real value to society or provided any real value to the consumers that were supposedly deceived. So, class action false advertising lawsuits can have incredibly important impacts on industry, the economy, and consumers. But they can also be a drain. And where you draw the line is the challenge.

HLT: It seems the biggest impact can be changing corporate behavior. What kind of redress do the plaintiffs typically receive?

Tompros: Class actions are often primarily about changing company behavior and creating a disincentive because of the need to pay out money when companies to engage in misleading or unsafe behavior. The named plaintiffs in class actions usually get somewhat better compensation as a result of being the named plaintiffs, as compared to unnamed individual class members. And so there is some advantage to those plaintiffs to being involved. Although many named plaintiffs want to be involved in class actions just to do the right thing and hold the defendant accountable. And, of course, as part of class action settlements or resolutions, there are almost always significant attorney’s fees involved. So, there’s a real incentive for class action law firms to bring consumer class actions because they are very well compensated, as they clearly should be in the cases that are meritorious and societally beneficial. But that also leaves room for, to put it bluntly, shenanigans, including overly aggressive class action lawsuits that don’t have a lot of merit and are driven by the lawyers and their desire for the fees rather than by a real, meritorious effort to hold a company accountable for harmful conduct. There are some class action cases where the lawyers probably were undercompensated for the amount of good that they were able to do based on the impact that the case had. But there are some where the case was really driven by the lawyers’ fees and were settled because the defendants would rather get rid of the litigation than spend more on their own attorneys’ fees defending against it.

HLT: On that note, do you think it is a coincidence that this lawsuit is being spearheaded by the same firm which is also involved in lawsuits against McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Wendy’s, and Arby’s, all alleging that the amount of meat in their food items is less than pictured in those companies’ ads?

Tompros: There are firms that specialize in class actions and they very much do drive the identification of potential class action plaintiffs and the filing of those suits. And they’re usually pretty forthright about it and advertise themselves. You may have seen late night TV ads that say, “Were you injured after taking X medication? If so, please call this firm.” The firms behind those ads are often looking for named plaintiffs for class action litigation. Usually, the law firms will identify what they perceive as a problem, and then hunt for people who have the receipts to be able to show that they were injured. So, it’s not surprising to me that the same firm has brought multiple cases of this nature against multiple different defendants. I’d be surprised if they hadn’t, quite honestly, because it takes a lot of expertise and a lot of experience to be able to bring these kinds of class actions.

Want to stay up to date with Harvard Law Today? Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Modal Gallery

Gallery block modal gallery.

• Insider Reviews
• Tech Buying Guides
• Personal Finance
• Sustainability
• United States
• International
• Deutschland & Österreich
• South Africa

• Home ›
• Strategy ›

18 false advertising scandals that cost some brands millions

Uber was forced to pay $20 million to settle claims brought to the FTC alleging the ride hailing service had inflated the hourly earnings for drivers in its online advertisements.

The FTC started investigating Uber in 2015 and finished its investigation at the beginning of 2017.

In a statement Uber said: " We’ve made many improvements to the driver experience over the last year and will continue to focus on ensuring that Uber is the best option for anyone looking to earn money on their own schedule."

Uber misled drivers about how much they could make.

In a statement Uber said: " We’ve made many improvements to the driver experience over the last year and will continue to focus on ensuring that Uber is the best option for anyone looking to earn money on their own schedule."

Ads for Dannon\'s popular Activia brand yogurt landed the company with a class action settlement of $45 million in 2010, according to ABC News . The yogurts were marketed as being "clinically" and "scientifically" proven to boost your immune system and able to help to regulate digestion.

The Activia ad campaign, fronted by actress Jamie Lee Curtis, claimed that the yogurt had special bacterial ingredients. As a result, the yogurt was sold at 30% higher prices than other similar products. However, the Cleveland judge overseeing the case said that these claims were unproven.

The lawsuit against Dannon began in 2008, when consumer Trish Wiener lodged a complaint. On top of the fine of $45 million, Dannon was ordered to remove "clinically" and "scientifically proven" from its labels, according to ABC.

Phrases similar to "clinical studies show" were deemed permissible. Dannon denied any wrongdoing and claimed it settled the lawsuit to "avoid the cost and distraction of litigation."

Activia yogurt said it had "special bacterial ingredients."

Ads for Dannon's popular Activia brand yogurt landed the company with a class action settlement of $45 million in 2010, according to ABC News . The yogurts were marketed as being "clinically" and "scientifically" proven to boost your immune system and able to help to regulate digestion.

Ads for Dannon's popular Activia brand yogurt landed the company with a class action settlement of $45 million in 2010, according to ABC News . The yogurts were marketed as being "clinically" and "scientifically" proven to boost your immune system and able to help to regulate digestion.

The lawsuit against Dannon began in 2008, when consumer Trish Wiener lodged a complaint. On top of the fine of $45 million, Dannon was ordered to remove "clinically" and "scientifically proven" from its labels, according to ABC.

Phrases similar to "clinical studies show" were deemed permissible. Dannon denied any wrongdoing and claimed it settled the lawsuit to "avoid the cost and distraction of litigation."

The two biggest fantasy sports companies were ordered to pay $6 million each in 2016 to settle multiple false advertising lawsuits, Fortune reported.

At the heart of the complaints was that both companies misrepresented the chances casual and novice players had of winning cash prizes and the chance to earn positive returns on their entry fees. It resulted out of an investigation that showed professional and high-volume players used automated computer scripts and sophisticated statistical game theory to achieve huge payoffs.

According to a statement from the New York AttorneyGeneral the " settlement agreements impose the highest New York penalty awards for deceptive advertising in recent memory."

According to Bloomberg , the merger discussions between both companies is progressing.

DraftKings and FanDuel exaggerated novice users' chances of winning.

According to a statement from the New York AttorneyGeneral the " settlement agreements impose the highest New York penalty awards for deceptive advertising in recent memory."

In 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against Volkswagen , which claimed the car company had deceived customers with the advertising campaign it used to promote its supposedly "Clean Diesel" vehicles, according to a press release .

The year prior, it was exposed that VW had been cheating emissions tests on its diesel cars in the US for the past seven years .

The FTC alleged that "Volkswagen deceived consumers by selling or leasing more than 550,000 diesel cars based on false claims that the cars were low-emission, environmentally friendly."

On top of potential fines for false advertising, the company could have to pay out up to $61 billion for violating the Clean Air Act, according to Wired .

The total settlement for Dieselgate was estimated to have reached $15 billion .

VW falsely advertised environmentally friendly diesel cars.

In 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against Volkswagen , which claimed the car company had deceived customers with the advertising campaign it used to promote its supposedly "Clean Diesel" vehicles, according to a press release .

The FTC alleged that "Volkswagen deceived consumers by selling or leasing more than 550,000 diesel cars based on false claims that the cars were low-emission, environmentally friendly."

In 2013, UK supermarket chain Tesco was criticized after it ran a "misleading" ad campaign in the wake of its horse meat scandal, according to The Telegraph .

The supermarket had been caught selling beef contaminated with horse meat in some of its burgers and ready meals .

In an attempt to recover from the PR disaster, Tesco ran a two-page spread in national newspapers with the headline "What burgers have taught us."

In the ad, Tesco was criticized for implying that the whole meat industry was implicated in the horse meat fiasco, which was untrue. The UK advertising regulator ASA banned the campaign.

Nearly £300 million ($432 million) was wiped off the value of Tesco following the horse meat scandal, according to The Guardian .

Tesco was criticized for an ad in response to the horse meat scandal, which suggested the problem affected "the whole food industry."

In 2013, UK supermarket chain Tesco was criticized after it ran a "misleading" ad campaign in the wake of its horse meat scandal, according to The Telegraph .

In an attempt to recover from the PR disaster, Tesco ran a two-page spread in national newspapers with the headline "What burgers have taught us."

Nearly £300 million ($432 million) was wiped off the value of Tesco following the horse meat scandal, according to The Guardian .

Energy drinks company Red Bull was sued in 2014 for its slogan "Red Bull gives you wings." The company settled the class action case by agreeing to pay out a maximum of $13 million — including $10 to every US consumer who had bough the drink since 2002.

The tagline, which the company has used for nearly two decades, went alongside marketing claims that the caffeinated drink could improve a person\'s concentration and reaction speed.

Beganin Caraethers was one of several consumers who brought the case against the Austrian drinks company. He said he was a regular consumer of Red Bull for 10 years, but that he had not developed "wings," or shown any signs of improved intellectual or physical abilities.

Red Bull released this statement following the settlement: "Red Bull settled the lawsuit to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation. However, Red Bull maintains that its marketing and labeling have always been truthful and accurate, and denies any and all wrongdoing or liability."

Red Bull said it could "give you wings."

The tagline, which the company has used for nearly two decades, went alongside marketing claims that the caffeinated drink could improve a person's concentration and reaction speed.

Energy drinks company Red Bull was sued in 2014 for its slogan "Red Bull gives you wings." The company settled the class action case by agreeing to pay out a maximum of $13 million — including $10 to every US consumer who had bough the drink since 2002.

Beganin Caraethers was one of several consumers who brought the case against the Austrian drinks company. He said he was a regular consumer of Red Bull for 10 years, but that he had not developed "wings," or shown any signs of improved intellectual or physical abilities.

Red Bull released this statement following the settlement: "Red Bull settled the lawsuit to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation. However, Red Bull maintains that its marketing and labeling have always been truthful and accurate, and denies any and all wrongdoing or liability."

New Balance was accused of false advertising in 2011 over a sneaker range that it claimed could help wearers burn calories, according to Reuters . Studies found that there were no health benefits from wearing the shoe.

The toning sneakers claimed to use hidden board technology and were advertised as calorie burners that activated the glutes, quads, hamstrings, and calves. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed to have been harmed and misled by the sneaker company.

On August 20, 2012, New Balance agreed to pay a settlement of $2.3 million, according to The Huffington Post .

New Balance said its shoe could help wearers burn calories.

In January 2016, the makers of popular brain-training app Luminosity were given a $2 million fine from the Federal Trade Commission , which said the company deceived players with "unfounded" advertising claims.

The app company made false claims about being able to help prevent Alzheimer\'s disease, as well as aiding players to perform better at school, the FTC found. Luminosity said in its ads that people who played the games for more than 10 minutes, three times a week would release their "full potential in every aspect of life,” according to Time.

Jessica Rich, a director at the FTC said : "“Lumosity simply did not have the science to back up its ads."

Lumos Labs said Luminosity could help prevent Dementia.

The app company made false claims about being able to help prevent Alzheimer's disease, as well as aiding players to perform better at school, the FTC found. Luminosity said in its ads that people who played the games for more than 10 minutes, three times a week would release their "full potential in every aspect of life,” according to Time.

In January 2016, the makers of popular brain-training app Luminosity were given a $2 million fine from the Federal Trade Commission , which said the company deceived players with "unfounded" advertising claims.

The app company made false claims about being able to help prevent Alzheimer's disease, as well as aiding players to perform better at school, the FTC found. Luminosity said in its ads that people who played the games for more than 10 minutes, three times a week would release their "full potential in every aspect of life,” according to Time.

Jessica Rich, a director at the FTC said : "“Lumosity simply did not have the science to back up its ads."

Kellogg\'s popular Rice Krispies cereal had a crisis in 2010 when the brand was accused of misleading consumers about the product\'s immunity-boosting properties, according to CNN .

The Federal Trade Commission ordered Kellogg to halt all advertising that claimed that the cereal improved a child\'s immunity with "25 percent Daily Value of Antioxidants and Nutrients — Vitamins A, B, C and E," stating the the claims were "dubious."

The case was settled in 2011. Kellogg agreed to pay $2.5 million to affected consumers, as well as donating $2.5 million worth of Kellogg products to charity, according to Law360 .

Kellogg said Rice Krispies could boost your immune system.

Kellogg's popular Rice Krispies cereal had a crisis in 2010 when the brand was accused of misleading consumers about the product's immunity-boosting properties, according to CNN .

The Federal Trade Commission ordered Kellogg to halt all advertising that claimed that the cereal improved a child's immunity with "25 percent Daily Value of Antioxidants and Nutrients — Vitamins A, B, C and E," stating the the claims were "dubious."

The Federal Trade Commission ordered Kellogg to halt all advertising that claimed that the cereal improved a child's immunity with "25 percent Daily Value of Antioxidants and Nutrients — Vitamins A, B, C and E," stating the the claims were "dubious."

Herbal supplement Airborne was a national hit throughout the 1990s. Marketing of the product claimed that it helped ward off harmful bacteria and germs, preventing everyday ailments like the flu and common cold.

There were no studies to support Airborne\'s effectiveness claims that met scientific standards — so the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) got involved.

The high-profile scandal ended with a huge settlement, with Airborne having to pay $23.3 million in the class-action lawsuit, and an additional $7 million settlement later, according to NPR .

Airborne claimed it could help ward off harmful germs.

There were no studies to support Airborne's effectiveness claims that met scientific standards — so the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) got involved.

There were no studies to support Airborne's effectiveness claims that met scientific standards — so the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) got involved.

Wal-Mart agreed to pay more than $66,000 in fines, after over-charging customers from 117 stores in New York for Coca-Cola. The supermarket chain had advertised a nationwide sale on the soft drink in 2014, where 12-packs would cost just $3.oo.

However, customers in New York State were charged $3.50. Wal-Mart staff allegedly lied about the reasons for the price-hike, telling customers that New York has a "sugar tax," according to Corporate Crime Reporter.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who conducted the investigation, concluded the price violated New York State’s General Business Law 349 and 350.

Wal-Mart falsely advertised the price of Coke in New York.

However, customers in New York State were charged $3.50. Wal-Mart staff allegedly lied about the reasons for the price-hike, telling customers that New York has a "sugar tax," according to Corporate Crime Reporter.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who conducted the investigation, concluded the price violated New York State’s General Business Law 349 and 350.

Hyundai agreed to pay more than $85 million in a settlement in 2004, after it overstated the horsepower of cars imported to the US, according to Consumer Affairs . The class action lawsuit was on behalf of around 840,000 people who bought the 1996 to 2002 models of the Hyundai Elentra sedans and the Tiburon sport coupes.

In 2001, the Korean Ministry of Construction and Transportation had uncovered the misrepresentation, which, for some models, overstated horsepower by 10% .

The class action lawsuit was brought in southern California in September 2002. After it was settled in 2004, Hyundai sent letters offering prepaid debit cards to affected owners. They were worth up to $225.

Hyundai over-sold its cars' horsepower.

In 2013, Kellogg was in even more trouble. The company agreed to pay $4 million for false advertising claims it made about Frosted Mini-Wheats. The cereal company had falsely claimed that the Mini-Wheats improved " children\'s attentiveness, memory and other cognitive functions ," according to Associated Press. The ad campaign claimed that the breakfast cereal could improve a child\'s focus by nearly 20%.

In its defense, Kellogg said that the ad campaign ran four years previously and that it had since adjusted its claims about the cereal. Kellogg also noted that it "has a long history of responsible advertising."

People who consumed the cereal during the time the ad ran (January 28, 2009 to October 1, 2009) were allowed to claim back $5 per box, with a maximum of $15 per customer , according to Associated Press.

Later, Kellogg said Mini-Wheats could make you smarter.

In 2013, Kellogg was in even more trouble. The company agreed to pay $4 million for false advertising claims it made about Frosted Mini-Wheats. The cereal company had falsely claimed that the Mini-Wheats improved " children's attentiveness, memory and other cognitive functions ," according to Associated Press. The ad campaign claimed that the breakfast cereal could improve a child's focus by nearly 20%.

In 2013, Kellogg was in even more trouble. The company agreed to pay $4 million for false advertising claims it made about Frosted Mini-Wheats. The cereal company had falsely claimed that the Mini-Wheats improved " children's attentiveness, memory and other cognitive functions ," according to Associated Press. The ad campaign claimed that the breakfast cereal could improve a child's focus by nearly 20%.

In its defense, Kellogg said that the ad campaign ran four years previously and that it had since adjusted its claims about the cereal. Kellogg also noted that it "has a long history of responsible advertising."

The maker of penis enlargement pill Extenze agreed to pay $6 million to settle a class action lawsuit in 2010, according to CBS . Extenze had claimed its pills were "scientifically proven to increase the size of a certain part of the male body" in notorious late night TV commercials .

Extenze agreed to pay $6 million to settle a false advertising class action lawsuit. CBS noted that its website was also updated to say: "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Extenze is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."

Extenze claimed it could extend penis length.

The maker of penis enlargement pill Extenze agreed to pay $6 million to settle a class action lawsuit in 2010, according to CBS . Extenze had claimed its pills were "scientifically proven to increase the size of a certain part of the male body" in notorious late night TV commercials .

Extenze agreed to pay $6 million to settle a false advertising class action lawsuit. CBS noted that its website was also updated to say: "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Extenze is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."

The Sugar Association asked for an investigation into alternative sweetener Splenda\'s "Made from Sugar" slogan. It complained that the tagline was misleading, and that the sweetener is nothing more than "highly processed chemical compound made in a factory," CBS reported .

In 2007, a resulting lawsuit led by the makers of rival sweetener Equal, settled against Splenda. Equal was looking for $200 million from Splenda in the settlement for unfair profits. However, the exact amount of the settlement remains confidential, according to NBC .

Splenda said it was "made from sugar."

The Sugar Association asked for an investigation into alternative sweetener Splenda's "Made from Sugar" slogan. It complained that the tagline was misleading, and that the sweetener is nothing more than "highly processed chemical compound made in a factory," CBS reported .

The Sugar Association asked for an investigation into alternative sweetener Splenda's "Made from Sugar" slogan. It complained that the tagline was misleading, and that the sweetener is nothing more than "highly processed chemical compound made in a factory," CBS reported .

In 2014, cosmetics company L\'Oréal was forced to admit that its Lancôme Génifique and L’Oréal Paris Youth Code skincare products were not "clinically proven" to "boost genes" and give "visibly younger skin in just seven days," as stated in its advertising.

According to the FTC, the claims were "false and unsubstantiated."

In the settlement, L\'Oréal USA was banned from making claims about anti-aging, without "competent and reliable scientific evidence substantiating such claims," the FTC said. Though L\'Oreal escaped a fine at the time, each future violation of this agreement will cost the company up to $16,000.

L'Oreal claimed its skincare products were "clinically proven" to "boost genes."

In 2014, cosmetics company L'Oréal was forced to admit that its Lancôme Génifique and L’Oréal Paris Youth Code skincare products were not "clinically proven" to "boost genes" and give "visibly younger skin in just seven days," as stated in its advertising.

In the settlement, L'Oréal USA was banned from making claims about anti-aging, without "competent and reliable scientific evidence substantiating such claims," the FTC said. Though L'Oreal escaped a fine at the time, each future violation of this agreement will cost the company up to $16,000.

In 2014, cosmetics company L'Oréal was forced to admit that its Lancôme Génifique and L’Oréal Paris Youth Code skincare products were not "clinically proven" to "boost genes" and give "visibly younger skin in just seven days," as stated in its advertising.

According to the FTC, the claims were "false and unsubstantiated."

In the settlement, L'Oréal USA was banned from making claims about anti-aging, without "competent and reliable scientific evidence substantiating such claims," the FTC said. Though L'Oreal escaped a fine at the time, each future violation of this agreement will cost the company up to $16,000.

Eclipse gum claimed in its ads that its new ingredient, magnolia bark extract, had germ-killing properties.

A lawsuit brought by consumers alleged that the ads were misleading, according to Businessweek . Wrigley denied wrongdoing, but was ordered to pay more than $6 million to a fund that would reimburse consumers up to $10 each for the misleading product, in 2010.

Eclipse said its gum could kill germs.

Millions of people lit up when Classmates.com sent them an email saying old friends were trying to contact them, promising to rekindle old friendships and flames if subscribers upgraded to a "Gold" membership. But with the upgrade, the expected reunions never came. It turns out the social networking site used the ploy to get users to give up extra dollars. In 2008, one miffed user filed a suit alleging the "deceptive" emails were false advertising. Classmates.com eventually agreed to pay out a $9.5 million settlement —$3 for every subscriber who fell for the dirty trick — to resolve the case, according to the Business Journal .

However, the website did not learn from its mistakes and in 2015 it was slapped with another $11 million in fines, according to Consumer Affairs .

Classmates.com was accused of tricking users into paying to respond to friends, who weren't actually on the site.

Millions of people lit up when Classmates.com sent them an email saying old friends were trying to contact them, promising to rekindle old friendships and flames if subscribers upgraded to a "Gold" membership. But with the upgrade, the expected reunions never came. It turns out the social networking site used the ploy to get users to give up extra dollars. In 2008, one miffed user filed a suit alleging the "deceptive" emails were false advertising. Classmates.com eventually agreed to pay out a $9.5 million settlement —$3 for every subscriber who fell for the dirty trick — to resolve the case, according to the Business Journal .

• Telegram ban
• Zepto vs Swiggy Instamart vs Blinkit
• MH370 conspiracy theories
• ChatGPT will let you create images for free
• Should the government give freebies to the poor?
• Personal finance scams in India
• World’s most powerful passports
• Biggest crypto hacks
• Jio vs Airtel vs Vi Prepaid Plans
• Best printers for Home
• Best Mixer Grinder
• Best wired Earphones
• Best 43 Inch TV in India
• Best Wi Fi Routers
• Best Home Theatre in India
• Smart Watch under 5000
• Best Laptops for Education
• Best Laptop for Students
• Advertising
• Write for Us
• Privacy Policy
• Policy News
• Personal Finance News
• Mobile News
• Business News
• Ecommerce News
• Startups News
• Stock Market News
• Finance News
• Entertainment News
• Economy News
• Careers News
• International News
• Politics News
• Education News
• Advertising News
• Health News
• Science News
• Retail News
• Sports News
• Personalities News
• Corporates News
• Environment News
• ITR Filing Last Date
• Blackstone to acquire stake in Haldiram's
• India Unemployment Rate
• Top 10 richest cricketers in the world
• List of chief ministers in India
• Highest paid actresses in India
• Top 10 Richest people
• Youngest billionaires in the world
• Top 10 richest women in the world
• Highest paid actors in India 2024
• Richest people in India 2024
• Top 10 Largest Economies
• Deleted Whatsapp Messages
• How to restore deleted messages
• 10 types of Drinks
• Instagram Sad Face Filter
• Recover Whatsapp Messages
• How to check Vodafone Balance
• Transfer Whatsapp Message
• Dual Whatsapp on Single phone

Copyright © 2024 . Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.For reprint rights. Times Syndication Service.

• DAILY NEWS: OUR PICKS
• AUTHORS Sucheta Dalal Debashis Basu R Balakrishnan Vinita Deshmukh Walter Vieira Amitabha Banerjee Ranganathan V Yogesh Sapkale Gautam Sen Prof Dr BM Hegde Shailesh Gandhi Veeresh Malik Rahul Deodhar Saket Hishikar Sarvesh Mathur Sushil Prasad Dr B Yerram Raju Sanjay Bakshi Dr Rajendra M Ganatra Amey Kulkarni Ramesh S Arunachalam TR Bhat Murali Neelakantan Yazdi Tantra Bhagyalakshmi Seshachalam Dr Sakuntala Narasimhan
• PERSONAL FINANCE Insurance Banking World Loans Retirement Career Financial Planning
• INVESTOR INTEREST Stock Manipulation Mutual Funds Regulations Stocks World Fixed Income Investor Issues Alternative Investment Learning Commodities
• PUBLIC INTEREST Right to Information RTI Judgement Series Citizens' Issues World Aadhaar
• CONSUMER INTEREST Spending World Consumer Issues
• ECONOMY & NATION Economy Taxation Money & Banking ILFS Mess MLM / Chain Money World Nation Bonds, Currencies & Commodities Enforcement & Investigation Companies & Sectors Exports
• LIFE Technology Moneylife Events Beyond Money Book Reviews Pathbreakers 1 Pathbreakers 2 Health News World Lifestyle & Leisure

• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy
• Cancellation & Refund Policy
• Shipping Policy
• Grievance Disclosures

• To bookmark you need to sign in

The energy drink company has agreed to offer a $10 cash reimbursement or $15 in Red Bull products to any consumer in the US who bought a Red Bull product since 1 January 2002

Red Bull has consented to cough up some $13 million in customer refunds to settle a class-action lawsuit over false advertising.

The energy drink company has agreed to offer a $10 cash reimbursement or $15 in Red Bull products to any consumer in the US who bought a Red Bull product since 1 January 2002. While denying all wrongdoing, Red Bull will also potentially have to pay nearly $5 million in plaintiff attorney fees. And that’s in addition to the $13 million.

The complaint centered around the allegation “that the functional benefits of consuming Red Bull are not superior to the benefits from ingesting an equivalent amount of alternate sources of caffeine, and that consumers have been misled by Red Bull advertising to believe the drink is a superior source of energy beyond caffeine,” the settlement states.

To receive a cash refund or $15 in free products, a consumer will need to submit a valid claim form. No receipts necessary.

For more of our coverage on energy drinks, click here . Courtesy: TruthInAdvertising.org

• EDITORS' PICKS
• MOST POPULAR

Rs2 Lakh Crore Locked-up: Moneylife Foundation Report Released by KV Kamath,...

Now, bank fds sahi hai, the pinochet precedent: a lesson for sebi in conflict & propriety, revisit the retrospective tax, sebi-hindenburg-adani: how not to handle a credibility crisis, exclusive: shouldn't sebi officials be subject to the same standards of..., sebi consultation paper: stock analysts will thrive; investment advisers will..., sbi took 65% haircut while settling bad loans worth rs1.30 lakh crore..., icici securities delisting saga: bombay hc asks sebi to disclose exemption..., il&fs: a ct-scan of the foremost financial fraud, nse's co-location scandal: close issue, list and usher transparency, dubious development demands gst notice, sbi asked to reimburse rs63.74 lakh with 9% interest for enabling net..., removing indexation: a step towards equitable housing and market stability, sebi’s credibility crisis is an opportunity to turn the tide in favour of..., minimum average balance: public sector banks collected rs8,495 crore since..., supreme court bats for excluding creamy layer among sc and sts from reservation, sbi's daylight loot continues, illegally deducts money from student's..., toilets: the missing link in our tourism infrastructure, fssai discards a2 milk claims, asks food business operators to remove it..., rs82,199 crore: that's iepf's investment in 1,561 companies from unclaimed..., bombay hc grants interim relief to burger king in trademark suit against..., reliance home finance fraud: sebi slaps rs624.06 crore penalty on 27, bars..., sebi uncovers massive fraud: debock industries' promoters accused of brazen..., nfra imposes rs10 crore penalty on kpmg affiliate and auditors for coffee..., is this hospital stock highly undervalued, telegram founder ceo pavel durov arrested at paris airport, cadbury dairy milk: till the product reaches the consumer, there is....

Absolute Power

Inside story of the National Stock Exchange’s amazing success, leading to hubris, regulatory capture and algo scam

The Scam: Now in it's 11 th Printing

29 Years Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller! #Scam92: Read the actual story.

Pathbreakers

Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.

Moneylife Online Magazine

Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.

1-year online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period. Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week. This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included. Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.

Monthly Digital Access

30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period. Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week. This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included. Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.

Full Archive access

Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance. Complete access to Moneylife archives since inception ( till the date of your subscription )

Stockletters in 5 Flavours

Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year

MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory

(Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)

For a better experience, please use a modern browser like Chrome, Firefox, Safari or Edge.

London Business School Publishing

• Create a profile

• Browse cases
• How to order

Preview case

Click Preview case to review the first page of this case

Main case New 2022/2023

Red Bull Spreads its Wiiings

By nader tavassoli.

Thirty-five years after its founding, the Red Bull energy drinks business continued to show strong growth globally. Over the years, the company had expanded its product line with different variants, such as sugar-free and flavoured Editions. More recently, the company had launched a sub-branded The Organics by Red Bull range that sat outside the energy-drinks category, and the AlphaTauri functional-fashion brand. The company had renamed one of its two F1 teams Scuderia AlphaTauri to provide a unique promotional platform for the fledgling fashion brand; one that was overtly endorsed by Red Bull. The case provides a basis for discussing the (dis)synergies between Red Bull and these extensions from a brand, consumer, and marketing perspective.

An extensive set of PowerPoint (PPT) teaching slides that include 7 different videos – a Red Bull brand purpose video, cartoon medley, Flugtag commercial, Soap Box Race commercial, Backyard Digger (BMX), former UK CMO interview, the AlphaTauri launch – are available to Educators from [email protected].

Learning objectives

• Understand Red Bull’s unique marketing approach
• Evaluate company portfolio strategy
• Evaluate strategic brand-architecture choices
• Understand the dynamics of creating and owning a new sub-category
• Learn how to build brand desirability and client engagement

Other cases in Marketing

• Entrepreneurship
• Innovation and Entrepreneurship
• Management Science and Operations
• Organisational Behaviour
• Organizational Behaviour and Strategy’
• Sustainability

Privacy Overview

• Harvard Business School →
• Faculty & Research →
• March 2014 (Revised March 2018)
• HBS Case Collection

Red Bull (A)

• Format: Print
• | Language: English
• | Pages: 17

About The Author

Eric J. Van den Steen

Related work.

• Faculty Research
• Red Bull (A)  By: Eric Van den Steen and Carin-Isabel Knoop

Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News

• Case Briefs

Red Bull v. Sting | Injunction application against Pepsico’s tagline “STIMULATES MIND ENERGIZES BODY”: Whether Pepsi has committed infringement? Del HC decides

Delhi High Court: Amit Bansal, J., observed that the taglines of ‘Red Bull’ and ‘Sting’ are descriptive and laudatory in nature. Interim

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)

Delhi High Court: Amit Bansal, J., observed that the taglines of ‘Red Bull’ and ‘Sting’ are descriptive and laudatory in nature.

Interim injunction against the defendants, restraining the defendants from using the tagline “STIMULATES MIND ENERGIZES BODY”, was sought as it was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark/tagline “VITALIZES BODY AND MIND”.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Whether a case of passing off has been made out by the plaintiff against the defendants?

The basic premise for passing off is deception caused on account of the defendant attempting to show its goods as that of the plaintiff.

The Bench referred to the Supreme Court decision in Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 145 .

As per the observation in the above decision, the common law remedy of passing off restrains a defendant from riding on the reputation and goodwill earned by a plaintiff, being the prior user/owner of a distinctive mark. The purpose of an action of passing off is to prevent confusion and deception amongst consumers and the public at large.

On comparison of the two products, it was observed that there was no similarity between the two products and the layout of the two cans was totally different.

Further, the Court noted that,

(i) the brand names of both the products, “Red Bull” and “STING” are prominently displayed on the cans;

(ii) the color scheme of the two products is completely different;

(iii) the fonts used in the two products are also different;

(iv) the taglines used, which are subject matter of the present dispute, are used in very small fonts on both the cans in comparison to “Red Bull” and “STING”; and,

(v) the colour in which the taglines are written and the backgrounds in which the taglines appear are also completely different.

Hence, in view of the above Court stated that, no confusion or deception would be caused to the customers of both the parties in respect of their products. Therefore, no case of passing off was made out.

Claim of Infringement  

Plaintiff claimed that it had been using the tagline for a long period of time and has spent enormous amounts on its promotion. Registration for the same has been granted to the plaintiff not only in India but in various other countries. The defendants adopted the plaintiff’s tagline in a malafide manner so as to communicate the same idea.

High Court stated that undoubtedly, the tagline of the plaintiff, has been granted registration in India in 2010, with effect from the date of the Trademark Application. However, the rights granted upon registration under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act are not absolute, being subject to other provisions of the Trade arks Act and upon the registration of the trademark being valid.

In Court’s opinion, the tagline of the plaintiff, which is a phrase or an expression, has a direct reference to the quality, intended purpose, values and other characteristics of the plaintiff’s products.

In Court’s prima facie view, the tagline used by the plaintiff was of descriptive/laudatory character, which ought not to have been granted registration in view of Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.

The use of the impugned tagline by the defendants was also in a descriptive/laudatory manner and not as a trademark.

The Bench added that, the tagline used by the defendants, “STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY.” is a phrase or an expression comprising four words of the English language that aims to describe the features and quality of its drink. In comparison to the brand name of the defendants’ product, “STING”, which is displayed prominently on the cans, the impugned tagline only appears in a small font.

Hence, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants were using the impugned mark in a manner that was likely to be taken as being used a trademark was not accepted.

Therefore, no infringement was committed in terms of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act.

The tagline of the plaintiff and the impugned tagline of the defendants are both descriptive in nature and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to grant of interim injunction against the defendants.

Whether or not at this stage, an interim injunction should be granted in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark?

With regard to the above, Court referred to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727 .

Noting that the defendants have been selling their product for a period of five years with the stated impugned mark, the balance of convenience would be against the grant of interim injunction.

Lastly, the Court held that, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case in its favour for grant of interim injunction.

Hence, the present application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was dismissed.[Red Bull AG v. Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 969 , decided on 6-4-2022]

Advocates before the Court:

For the Plaintiff:

Mr. Anirudh Bakhru with Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Naqeeb Nawab, Mr. Himanshu Deora, Mr.Raghav Vig & Mr. Yashwardhan Singh, Advocates.

For the Defendants:

Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Nair and Ms. Shruti Dass, Advocates.

Section 125 CrPC: Can the second wife be entitled to maintenance from her husband?

Delhi HC granted bail to a man accused of raping woman he met on dating app on pretext of marriage

Do convicts have a fundamental right to procreate? Watch to know what Delhi High Court recently held

Book release of 8th edition of “Criminology, Penology and Victimology” revised by Sanjay Vashishtha

Join the discussion, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Red Bull Marketing Strategy: The Case Study

Red Bull is an invincible marketing powerhouse.

When it comes to its marketing strategy, the brand takes great care of everything they do.

However, their marketing efforts always put the audience first.

In fact, their product sales are second to none.

Although Red Bull is active on multiple channels and uses many different strategies, they all revolve around the same concept: creating content and experiences that appeal to people regardless of the energy drink brand. 

Like major publishers, they have become one of the most talked-about brands in the world, producing content, providing mind-blowing programs, and much more.

Table of Contents

Red Bull Company: A Brief History

When the Austrian toothpaste seller Dietrich Mateschitz arrived in Thailand in 1987, Red Bull first heard of the “ energy tonic ” created by Chelio Yovidya. The tonic was thought to help keep drinkers awake and alert.

After three years of testing, Red Bull was launched in Austria, but two businessmen are skeptical. “There is no demand for such a drink in the market,” he said. No one is likely to try. But they were wrong

Today Red Bull dominated 2015 with a 43% market share . The best part? They are still going strong. Considering that Red Bull has kept the market in the first place, it is not bad to dominate almost half of it after almost three decades.

Here, is the infographic showing the growth of the Red Bull brand:

The Case Study of Red Bull’s unconventional marketing strategy

When the Red Bull first appeared, there were no energy drinks and traditional advertising was expensive.

Therefore, the Red Bull became a rookie and chose a different strategy.

What did he actually do?

They went straight to their target audience (men between the ages of 18 and 35) at college parties, libraries, cafes, bars, and other places.

They put the product in the hands of consumers by bringing free samples to the public.

It talked to people promoting its product for free.

They still use the same strategy: wherever they go, they go.

That means sponsoring a music festival or creating the most cultural content, they do.

In fact, the content that Red Bull publishes is displayed on a par with a professional publishing house. They are a media company intended to effectively sell energy drinks, not the other way around.

What is the best way to dominate the market?

Create one that does not yet exist.

This is exactly what happened to Red Bull Energy Drinks 30 years ago.

Thanks to smart marketing and creative strategy, they have been at the top for three decades.

How does Red Bull incorporate a content marketing strategy?

The elements of the Red Bull do exceptionally three things.

• First , it covers topics that interest its audience. Extreme sports, music festivals, and concerts are just some of the topics covered on the Red Bull website. Imagine being able to (or necessarily) enjoy Red Bull wherever you see it and its content covering it.
• Second , it is their ability to sell their brand, but not to push their product. Their content is focused not only on Red Bull sales but also on the pleasure of the readers. In turn, audiences begin to associate their product with the content they want to consume .
• Third , it delivers videos, blog posts, landing pages , and other types of content on the same professional level as the media sites where your target audience uses the content.

Take this video for example. It is packed with ingredients that anyone who loves high-energy, high-impact, and extreme aerobics will appreciate:

How will Red Bull reach its target market?

Red Bull focuses on three important tips for attracting its target audience:

Excellent Content Delivery: The content created by Red Bull’s marketing team is on par with other major media, allowing viewers to access the content.

Massive advertising stunts: Red Bull takes “ Go Big or Go Home ” to the next level by performing massive stunts to freeze everyone and see what happens.

Sponsorship or Event Creation: Red Bull showcases its marketing skills by taking its product and linking it to what the audience likes or creating events for them.

How does Red Bull use events to reach customers?

Part of their strategy is to host and sponsor events that their target market is already participating in. Whether it’s a concert, a film event, or extreme diving, Red Bull creates or sponsors an event around them.

Why is this a great move? His audience is already there. Their target audience is an active group. They love to try new and crazy stunts, extravagant sports, or extravagant at a music festival.

So Red Bull appears in places where they know they are their target audience .

Take Coachella for example. This huge music festival takes place over two weekends in the desert and fans should not miss a single second. This means sacrificing a few hours of sleep.

The Red Bull appears and gives them the wings (and energy) they need to stay awake and play at the festival.

How does Red Bull use advertising stunts to promote itself?

Another part of Red Bull’s marketing strategy is its insane advertising stunts. They sent a man aboard a small ship and a helium balloon 128,000 feet above the ground and sent him out. Known as the Red Bull Stratos Jump, this stunt broke two different world records:

By creating massive stunts like the Stratos jump, it makes his audience (and probably everyone agrees) stop and think, “Yeah? I have to see this.”

8 Ways to Implement Red Bull’s Marketing Strategy

The ability of Red Bull to adhere to its brand and values ​​makes them successful.

1. Maximize the idea behind their slogan

Red Bull’s message strategy revolves around its motto, “ Red Bull Gives You Wings “. It focuses on the idea that its product gives people the “wings” or the energy they need to do what they want.

This motto feeds their content as they create and record the most action-packed, high-flying games and activities the world has ever seen.

Need some help jumping off a plane in a flight suit? Let Red Bull give you the extra encouragement you need.

2. Maintain consistent visual branding

Visual branding created by Red Bull is the key to brand success.

Check out one of his most recent YouTube videos:

Content engages viewers in fast, high-intensity stunts that make them wonder if they can really pull it off.

That side of your seat, Shock Mindset is about the Red Bull brand. Instead, I can say, we gave people the energy (and courage) to try this crazy thing.

3. Build a solid foundation of content

The main content of RedBull can be summarized as follows:

They focus on extreme sports, music, art, dance, nightlife, and more. Due to this wide range, their content can attract the right audience.

Red Bull works with the main ingredients that put them in front of the pack.

Every piece of content they create matches the quality of their publications, such as Buzzfeed, Vice, ESPN, and other publications that can be read. That level of quality seems to come from a powerhouse dedicated to creating consumer media rather than energy drink brands.

4. Let values ​​be your guide

Their values ​​also play a role in their content. They focus on the basic phrase “giving wings to people and ideas”. Everything the Red Bull team communicates revolves around that motto and its values.

The ability to maintain a continuous conversation for the past 30 years has brought them success.

5. Restore the way they use traditional media

Content marketing is not the only thing that dominates Red Bull. The brand also invests a significant stake in traditional mass media channels.

Red Bull TV content works in two formats: videos they create for their online channels (YouTube, social media, etc.) and ads that collaborate with traditional TV channel content:

Its TV content was streamed live on his online hub, Red Bull TV. Their videos and shows are divided into event and movie formats, as well as channel topics such as cliff diving and culture:

It also entered the field of music. In addition to covering or sponsoring major concerts, Red Bull also has its own record label, recording studio, music academy, publishing group, and online radio station.

6. Being strong and proud of social media strategy

Another channel dominated by the Red Bull power is social media .

For example, his Facebook page is filled with visually appealing art videos, music created by his record label that thrills audiences, and sports and events that his audience enjoys.

Red Bull’s message is short and sweet because the first 3 seconds will surprise you with what happens. You have no choice but to go completely:

Their Twitter and Instagram channels instead focus on recognizable images to share and promote conversation with their fans.

Which film is unique to Red Bull? According to Link Human, these films capture motion, drama, and emotion:

Their ability to create dynamic social media posts that generated enough interest to stop fans from scrolling further hit him so hard on social media. Each media element feels like its content is in motion, reflecting the brand’s high-power aesthetic.

7. Expose the product to the public with sponsorships and events

Ultimately, Red Bull’s sponsorships and programs are the last part of their marketing strategy to sell their brand dominance. We divide their efforts into three categories:

• Advertising stunt.
• Events created by them.
• Sponsorship.

Their advertising stunts are insane enough to make the world stop and look. Sure, they have a stratospheric jump, but there are many more.

Take the Red Bull Air Force team for example. This group is dedicated to showcasing some of the strangest aerial feats have ever seen:

There are shows like Red Bull Crashing Ice or Red Bull Queen of the Bay, which respectfully focus on specific sports such as ice cross or surfing. These events focus on sports fans and raise awareness about the Red Bull brand.

Finally, there are sponsorships. From the Electric Daisy Carnival in Las Vegas to Coachella, the Red Bull is involved in everything. This is a great move by the company because who is attending all those events? Their target audience.

Not only that, but those sponsorships allow the Red Bull brand to be exposed to new audiences as they are attended by a large number of people.

8. Creating content around what your audience likes

What do they have in common with each item they cover (and there are many)?

They focus on the activities that people participate in when they consume their products. They also post content that their audience can navigate.

They post large amounts of content on their website and, surprisingly, do not mention their product in any way:

They produce The Red Bulletin, a magazine that distributes 2.2 million copies a month:

In short, if their target audience is consuming content on a particular channel, you can count on Red Bull’s presence.

Finally, What Did We Learn from Red Bull Marketing Strategy?

Needless to say, Red Bull has come a long way in the 30 years since its inception. From a very humble beginning to a mega-brand publishing house, Red Bull is a success story in marketing.

Are you inspired by Red Bull’s marketing strategy?

Let their story serve as a reminder that your company should start somewhere. They did not go to a multinational company overnight from an idea in Thailand. It took time, luck, and some effort (and a lot of great marketing along the way).

• Follow their leadership by starting small. Here are some ideas:
• Create a short series of weekly videos on a topic that will interest your audience.
• Curate social media content that meets your product purpose and the interests of your audience (without mentioning you directly).
• Publish an email newsletter with interesting and useful material that your audience will love (and can slap your logo anywhere).

Here’s the key: To be successful in content marketing like Red Bull, you must put your audience’s interests first and create content publishers.

Instead of imitating other marketers, imitate magazines, TV shows, news websites, and anything else your audience reads and watches.

Want to know more about how to actually do this? Here are some additional reading tips to get you started:

Because Red Bull strategy works

Red Bull’s strategy works for three different reasons:

• The first is his ability to tell a story that appeals to an audience. His focus on everything from extravagant sports to music festivals gives him a vast playing field, but that’s not all.
• Second Red Bull ranks its product in providing content and value to its audience. Attention to the details provided by their marketing team is evident. People who care about what they write, record or create around them.
• Ultimately , their commitment to the values ​​and aesthetics that the brand created when it first launched will drive its marketing. Everything they make is associated with the idea of ​​giving wings to people and ideas to fly.

That’s all if you find this content interesting. Don’t forget to share and leave comments. Thank you.

Other Interesting Reads:

A go through into the marketing strategy of Starbucks

Oreo Marketing Case Study: A blend of 4Ps of Marketing Mix

What is Brand Engagement & Why it is important?

• Trackback: Puma Marketing Strategy Between Competition & Sponsorship - Mix With Marketing
• Trackback: McDonald's marketing strategy: A benchmark in the fast food industry - Mix With Marketing

Greate pieces. Keep writing such kind of information on your blog. Im really impressed by your site. Hello there, You’ve performed an excellent job. I’ll definitely digg it and individually recommend to my friends. I’m confident they will be benefited from this web site.

transfer crypto from kraken to binance

Thanks for sharing. I read many of your blog posts, cool, your blog is very good.

inamdurrani60

Thanks Alot

zoritoler imol

I just like the valuable info you provide on your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and test once more here frequently. I’m quite certain I will be informed many new stuff right right here! Best of luck for the following!

Nice post. I learn something new and challenging on sites I stumbleupon everyday.

It will always be useful to read articles from other authors and use something from other websites.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You May Also Like

What is cloud computing with advantages & types?

How Artificial Intelligence [AI] is transforming Digital marketing’s future?

Content Curation: What is it?

Don't miss out on this amazing opportunity - subscribe now and start enjoying all the benefits!!!

No thanks, I’m not interested!

Newsletter Subscribe

Get the Latest Posts & Articles in Your Email

We Promise Not to Send Spam:)

Uncovering The Red Bull Marketing Strategy – A Case Study

Supti Nandi

January 17, 2024

In the world of energy drinks, the first name that pops into your head is “Red Bull”! Isn’t it? Why? Due to the tagline- “Red Bull gives you wings.” That’s where Red Bull marketing strategy comes into play.

By the way, don’t you wonder how Red Bull became synonymous with energy drinks? Afterall, the formula of energy drinks of all brands is more or less the same.

Just like I wrote above- effective brains of Red Bull marketing strategy includes revolutionary ad campaigns, it successfully created a strong brand identity.

So strong the brand’s name has become that it won over millions of admirers and maintained a loyal customer base!

Now here comes the intriguing part- What exactly did Red Bull do in marketing that it became a rising star straight away from Austria?

That’s what we will uncover in this write-up. Stay tuned!

(A) Red Bull Marketing Strategy: A Brief Overview

As you all know, Red Bull is a multinational energy drink company that has been able to dominate the energy drink industry with its unique marketing strategies.

Before diving into the details, let me give you a summary of the key aspects of Red Bull Marketing Strategy-

In the next sections, we will dive into some crucial facts on Red Bull Marketing Strategy.

(B) What is the unique selling point (USP) of Red Bull?

The unique selling point of Red Bull is its powerful and swaying slogan- “Red Bull gives you wings.” This slogan represents the idea of the energy drink brand that once you consume it, your performance will drastically improve with the energy provided in the drink. Thereby, you can achieve your goals.

Sounds interesting! Isn’t it?

This is quite similar to the motivation factor. As it is said you act the way you feel. So, irrespective of the secret formula of the drink, if you strongly believe that an energy drink will improve your performance, then by consuming it your performance will automatically improve. And the caffeine content plays its part as well to increase your metabolism that’s crucial for any physical activity or thrilling adventure.

The secret lies in your hormones i.e. Adrenaline (Fight or Flight hormone). So yes, apart from the caffeine and other nutritional content of the drink, the tagline is equally important to win the heart of the consumers.

That’s how the tagline as well as its formula (Caffeine, vitamins,  etc.) are the unique selling point of Red Bull.

(C) Who is Red Bull’s target audience?

If you randomly or carefully observe the ad campaigns of Red Bull, then you will see that the brand mostly associates itself with sports activities and thrillers.

Red Bull’s target audience is predominantly young and adventure-seeking individuals in the age group of 18-34 years old. It ecompasses both male and female demographics. Hence, it tailors its events and marketing strategies specifically with this target audience in mind.

In short, Red Bull aims to appeal to consumers with a strong appetite for high-risk activities and experiences.

(D) What/Who is Red Bull’s Biggest Sponsor?

Red Bull’s biggest sponsor is Oracle. Recently, they announced a new deal. Guess what? This is reportedly the biggest sponsorship deal ever in Formula 1.

This partnership represents a significant investment, showcasing the value that brands see in connecting with high-profile sports teams such as Red Bull Racing.

To the uninitiated, let me tell you, Oracle is an American multinational computer technology corporation that had already sponsored in 2021. Later, it increased its involvement to become the primary partner of Red Bull.

The fact that was more surprising to folks was- Oracle not only provided financial support but also contributed significantly to Red Bull.

Additionally, according to GlobalData’s report, the highest-spending sponsor brands for Red Bull Racing include Oracle, Bybit, Honda, ExxonMobil, and Tag Heuer.

(E) Who is Red Bull’s Biggest Competitor?

Red Bull faces competition from several major players in the energy drink and beverage industry. Some of its key competitors are-

• Monster Drink
• Rockstar Energy

So, the biggest competitor of Red Bull is Monster Drink. Let me give you another surprise! We have thrown a detailed comparison analysis on Red Bull vs Monster Drink . We have compared various aspects of both the energy drinks like content formula, business perspective, market dominance, etc.

So quickly check out the article “ Red Bull vs Monster Drink .”

Some other players competing with Red Bull in the beverage industry are-

As per some reports , Monster drink is expected to dominate the energy drinks sector, but it continues to face competition from Red Bull.

(F) 4Ps of Red Bull Marketing Strategy

Red Bull marketing strategy is all about creating exciting experiences that connect with its target audience, even if they’re not into energy drinks. They’ve done some eye-catchy things like sponsoring extreme sports, making viral videos, and even starting a record label. 

All of this is to bring their slogan, “RedBull Gives You Wings,” to life and make a strong emotional bond with their customers.

Now, let’s break down their marketing mix strategy involving 4 Ps-

(F.1) Product

• Unique Features: Red Bull stands out for its unique flavor, high caffeine content, and energizing effects.
• Ingredients: In addition to the typical nutritional information, Red Bull contains taurine, an amino acid known for boosting antioxidant activity in the body.
• Packaging: The distinctive packaging, featuring two bulls facing each other with red and orange colors, aims to evoke passion, aggression, and action, contributing to the brand’s image.

(F.2) Price

• Target Audience: Red Bull aims at young individuals aged 15 to 35, focusing on values like energy, power, and fun. This age group is ready to pay the price for anything that offers the best value of money. Hence, Red Bull effectively utilized this golden opportunity.
• Quality Perception: the pricing strategy implies that Red Bull customers prioritize the quality of the product over its cost.
• Premium Reputation: The cost aligns with the premium reputation of the beveragem reinforcing the idea that the product is worth its price.

(F.3) Place

• Distribution Channels: Red Bull is available in various places, including supermarkets, bars, online, cafeterias, hotels, etc.
• Global Presence: The product is sold in 171 different countries, showcasing a broad international presence.
• Sponsorship and Universe Creation: Beyond distribution, Red Bull has created a universe of sponsorship, participating in events and activities that align with its brand image.

(F.4) Promotion

• Unique Marketing Approaches: Red Bull is known for its unconventional marketing strategies, such as sponsoring extreme sports events, creating viral videos, and even establishing a record label.
• Iconic Slogan: The slogan “Red Bull Gives You Wings” has been a consistent and iconic part of their promotional efforts since 1987, symbolizing the energy and confidence the brand provides.
• Versatility of Slogan Usage: The slogan is used across various promotional mediums, from advertisements to merchandise, making it instantly recognizable and closely associated with the brand.

In short, Red Bull’s marketing mix strategy combines a unique product offering with strategic pricing, extensive distribution, and innovative promotion to create a strong and distinctive brand identity in the energy drink market.

(G) Unlocking Red Bull’s Advertising Strategies

Red Bull goes big when it comes to advertising, pouring in millions to ensure their products stay in the minds of consumers. Let’s explore the key elements that make their advertising strategy a soaring success.

(G.1) Maximizing the Potential of their Slogan

At the heart of Red Bull’s messaging is their powerful tagline, “Red Bull Gives You Wiiings.” This slogan isn’t just catchy; it’s a declaration that their drink provides the energy and power needed to chase dreams. It’s more than a tagline; it’s a promise. Do you know they had to change the spelling of “wings” to “wiiings” due to a controversy?

(G.2) Maintaining Consistent Visual Branding

Red Bull’s success isn’t just about words; it’s also about visuals. Their vibrant colors, distinctive logo, and visually striking content convey the message: “We give people the energy to do anything.” From warm hues to fascinating experiments, their visual identity is as energetic as their product.

(G.3) Developing a Strong Core of Content

Red Bull’s content is a powerhouse covering extreme sports, festivals, and the fast-paced lifestyle their product embodies. From heart-pounding sports to music, art, dance, and nightlife, Red Bull’s content is a dynamic mix that appeals to a diverse audience, making it accessible to everyone.

(G.4) Social Media Mastery

Red Bull dominates on social media, especially on platforms like Facebook. Their page is a visual feast, featuring artistic videos with stunning visuals, music from their record label, and coverage of sports and events that resonate with their audience. It’s not just marketing; it’s an experience.

(G.5) Sponsorships and Events

Key to Red Bull’s strategy is their dynamic sponsorship and event initiatives. Whether it’s jaw-dropping publicity stunts, events they create, or sponsorship of other high-energy experiences, Red Bull doesn’t just advertise; they immerse themselves in the scenes their audience loves.

(G.6) Student Marketer Program

Red Bull stands out with its Wings Team, a unique student marketeer program. Instead of just using students as ambassadors, Red Bull lets them actively contribute to their marketing efforts. It’s a dynamic approach that sets them apart from the crowd.

(G.7) Advertising Budget Soars to New Heights

In 2020, Red Bull flexed its financial muscle with a sponsoring and advertising budget of around 1.6 billion euros. This hefty investment primarily fueled their involvement in extreme sports events globally. From premium ad units to a multi-format approach (digital, print, and national TV), Red Bull strategically allocates its budget for maximum impact.

In a world where energy is everything, Red Bull doesn’t just sell a drink; it sells a lifestyle, and their advertising strategy is the wind beneath their wings.

(H) Uncovering the secrets of Red Bull Marketing Strategy

Red Bull has soared to new heights not just with its energy drinks but also through groundbreaking campaigns that have left an indelible mark on marketing history.

(H.1) Stratos Campaign: Touching the Skies, Inspiring the Masses

The “Red Bull Stratos” campaign wasn’t just iconic; it was a historic leap. Austrian skydiver Felix Baumgartner’s dive from near-space, 23 miles above the Earth, captivated the world. This extraordinary display of human achievement, funded and orchestrated by Red Bull, generated massive media attention and estimated coverage worth millions of dollars.

(H.2) Red Bull Racing: Racing into New Horizons

The success of the “Red Bull Racing” campaign not only thrilled fans but also propelled the brand into new markets. This venture showcased Red Bull’s ability to combine adrenaline-pumping content with effective marketing, expanding its reach and fan base.

(H.3) Social Media Marvels: Building Bridges with Fans

In the digital realm, Red Bull has crafted effective social media campaigns, leveraging the power of influencers to create emotional connections with their audience. This modern approach has played a pivotal role in keeping the brand relevant and engaging with its customers.

(H.4) Red Bull Gives You Wings: A Slogan That Soars

The iconic slogan, “Red Bull Gives You Wings,” has been more than just words; it’s become synonymous with the brand. From advertisements to merchandise and even on the can itself, the slogan has become a powerful tool, instantly recognizable to millions globally, contributing significantly to the brand’s success.

(H.5) Extreme Sports Fusion: Beyond the Drink

While Red Bull may sell energy drinks, its marketing strategy extends far beyond mere beverage sales. The founder strategically associated the brand with extreme sports events, creating a unique identity that sets Red Bull apart in the market.

(H.6) Diverse Event Engagement: Sports, Music, and More

Red Bull’s involvement in various sports like soccer and ice hockey is diverse, but the spotlight remains on extreme sports. The company strategically places emphasis on events that align with its high-energy brand image.

(H.7) Guerrilla Marketing: Creating a Buzz

Understanding the power of popularity, Red Bull implemented guerrilla marketing, strategically placing empty cans to create the impression that everyone was consuming their drink. This unconventional approach proved successful, adding another layer to Red Bull’s innovative marketing strategies.

That’s how, Red Bull’s global marketing strategy doesn’t just sell a drink; it taps into the emotions that move people. With a blend of groundbreaking campaigns, iconic slogans, and a strategic presence in various realms, Red Bull has established itself as a dynamic force in the world of marketing.

(I) Unveiling the Experimental Marketing Strategy of Red Bull

Red Bull has not only conquered the energy drink market but has also soared high in the realm of experiential marketing. Let’s unravel the unique strategies that have allowed Red Bull to connect deeply with its audience through events.

(I.1) Flugtag Race: Soaring Beyond Limits

Participating in events like the Flugtag Race, Red Bull demonstrates its prowess in connecting storytelling, brand building, and customer experiences. The company seamlessly engages consumers while promoting its brand identity, fostering a connection that goes beyond just selling a product. 

Events like these contribute to Red Bull’s loyal customer base and position it as a leader in the competitive energy drink market.

(J) Red Bull’s Digital Symphony: Crafting Immersive Journeys Online

Red Bull doesn’t just stop at physical events; it extends its reach through a dynamic digital marketing strategy, creating engaging experiences for its audience across various online platforms.

(J.1) Targeting the Right Crowd: Young, Active, and Adventurous

The key to Red Bull’s digital success lies in understanding its audience. The brand focuses on young, active individuals with a penchant for extreme sports and adventure. By tailoring their digital content to this demographic, Red Bull ensures that it resonates deeply with the very consumers it aims to capture.

(J.2) Soaring and Eye-Catchy Content: Videos, Articles, and Social Media Adventures

Red Bull’s digital content is not just about pushing products; it’s about creating an immersive experience. From thrilling videos to insightful articles and engaging social media posts, the content features extreme sports athletes and events sponsored by Red Bull. This strategic blend ensures that the brand remains not just a beverage but a lifestyle choice for its audience.

(K) What Red Bull Marketing Strategy Teaches Us?

Red Bull’s marketing plan sparks debates globally, even among those who may not sip their energy drinks. The brand’s omnipresence, from our refrigerators to outer space, demonstrates that an unconventional approach to marketing can create a universal impact.

In essence, Red Bull teaches us that marketing isn’t just about selling a product; it’s about crafting experiences that resonate with the audience, be it through heart-pounding events or immersive digital journeys. The brand has truly mastered the art of not just being a drink but a lifestyle choice for its diverse and devoted consumer base.

(L) Why is Red Bull so successful?

Red Bull’s unparalleled success can be attributed to its masterful blend of experiential marketing, digital prowess, and a brand identity that transcends mere energy drinks. The brand’s commitment to crafting unforgettable experiences through events like the Flugtag Race establishes a genuine connection with consumers, fostering brand loyalty. 

In the digital realm, Red Bull goes beyond conventional marketing, engaging its target audience of young, adventurous individuals through captivating content on social media, websites, and mobile apps. The iconic slogan, “Red Bull Gives You Wings,” isn’t just a tagline – it’s a symbol of empowerment and a key factor in the brand’s global recognition. Red Bull’s diverse involvement in extreme sports, music, and various events ensures a broad appeal, making it more than just a beverage but a lifestyle.

 In essence, Red Bull’s success lies in its ability to create a brand experience that extends far beyond the confines of a can, resonating with a diverse and enthusiastic audience worldwide!

(M) Wrapping Up Red Bull Marketing Strategy

Red Bull marketing strategy is a case study in successful brand promotion. The company maintains a strong focus on interpreting the products’ relevance to the target customers at a local level, allowing room for growth and adaptability. Red Bull also prioritizes raising brand awareness through various channels and ensuring that all content accurately reflects the brand’s identity. Their marketing efforts have been found to be highly effective in influencing young consumers’ behaviors, as highlighted by a study conducted by the University of Leeds. 

Ultimately, Red Bull’s success story demonstrates how an effective marketing strategy can propel a brand to international recognition!

Related Posts:

Contact Info: Axponent Media Pvt Ltd, 706-707 , 7th Floor Tower A , Iris Tech Park, Sector 48, Sohna Road, Gurugram, India, Pin - 122018

© The Business Rule 2024