A California resident has reportedly filed a putative class action against the company that makes 5-Hour Energy® shots, claiming that “no genuine scientific research” and “no scientifically reliable studies” support the company’s claims that the product provides “any more additional benefits over a caffeine tablet or a cup of coffee.” Soto v. Innovation Ventures, LLC, No. 13-591 (C.D. Cal., filed January 28, 2013). According to a news source, the plaintiff alleges that the company overcharges consumers based on false claims and that some of the product’s ingredients may present serious undisclosed health risks. Seeking to represent a nationwide class and statewide subclass of consumers, the plaintiff apparently alleges violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Business and Professions Code, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud (intentional misrepresentation and concealment of fact). See Mealey’s Class Actions, February 1, 2013.
Tag Archives energy drinks
The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) has issued a position statement on energy drinks (ED) and energy shots (ES), claiming that “given the number of servings of these products that are consumed daily, the rate of adverse events appears low in the population of consumers.” Bill Campell, et al., “International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: energy drinks,” Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, January 2013. After analyzing the scientific literature on this topic, ISSN found that “[a]lthough ED and ES contain a number of nutrients that are purported to affect mental and/ or physical performance, the primarily ergogenic nutrients in most ED and ES appear to be carbohydrate and/or caffeine.” The society thus concluded that consuming low-calorie ED “10-60 minutes before exercise can improve mental focus, alertness, anaerobic performance, and/or endurance performance,” but cautioned that drinking higher-calorie ED during exercise may promote weight gain. At the…
Chicago Alderman Edward Burke (14) has introduced a proposed ordinance that would prohibit the distribution of energy drinks in the city. Citing the popularity of the drinks among teenagers and young adults and the dangers they purportedly pose to health, the ordinance defines “energy drink” as “a canned or bottled beverage which contains an amount of caffeine exceeding or equal to 180 milligrams per container and containing Taurine (2-aminoethanesulfonic acid) or Guarana.” The proposed ordinance also states that those violating the ordinance would face fines of $100 to $500 per offense with a mandatory revocation or suspension of business licenses for repeat offenders. Some legal commentators and critics reportedly claim that the proposed ban is rife with legal flaws and misrepresentations about the law regarding energy drinks and that the ambiguity surrounding the regulation of these products needs to be addressed. The proposal was assigned to the City Council Committee…
New research from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) reportedly indicates that the number of emergency room (ER) visits involving energy drinks has doubled nationwide—from about 10,000 to more than 20,000—from 2007 to 2011. The statistics were gathered through the Drug Abuse Warning Network. “Consumption of energy drinks is a rising public health problem because medical and behavioral problems can result from excessive caffeine intake,” according to the report. “A growing body of scientific evidence documents harmful health effects of energy drinks, particularly for children, adolescents and young adults.” Among other things, the report also indicated that people ages 18 to 25 accounted for the largest group of ER patients, and men accounted for about two-thirds of those treated. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reportedly considering the findings in its broad review of the safety of energy drinks this spring. See The DAWN Report: Update on Emergency…
A New York resident has filed a putative nationwide class action against the company that makes Red Bull energy drinks, alleging that the product does not, as advertised, “give you wings,” that is, provide more benefit than a cup of coffee. Careathers v. Red Bull GMBH, No. 12-369 (S.D.N.Y., filed January 16, 2013). According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly base their claims that the product will “significantly improve a consumer’s physiological and mental performance beyond what a simple cup of coffee or caffeine pill would do” on scientific studies. The plaintiff claims, “there is no genuine scientific research and there are no scientifically reliable studies in existence that support the extraordinary claims of Defendants.” The complaint outlines the beverage’s history and development, beginning as tonic created in Thailand in the 1980s, and cites research that analyzed energy drink ingredients and concluded, “With the exception of some weak evidence for…
Democratic U.S. Sens. Edward Markey (Mass.), Richard Durbin (Ill.) and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) have issued letters to 14 energy drink companies, including Red Bull, Pepsi Co. Inc. and Monster Energy, seeking answers to more than a dozen questions. Responses are requested by February 1, 2013. Noting that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is investigating the industry, the senators contend that “[t]he blurred distinction between supplements and conventional foods or beverages combined with recent published reports by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and FDA regarding consumption of energy drinks has led to significant consumer confusion and concern about the safety and use of these products.” Among other matters, the senators ask (i) whether each company’s product is a “supplement, conventional food/beverage or neither,” (ii) how each company presents nutritional information on product labels, (iii) how much caffeine is present in the company’s product and whether this…
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) recently highlighted energy drinks in its December 19, 2012, online issue, where two commentaries discussed caffeine-related adverse events and the risks of mixing energy drinks with alcohol. Authored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center infectious disease specialist Kent Sepkowitz, the first viewpoint article notes that “the swift change in public perception of energy drinks from harmless mild stimulant to lethal, unregulated drug is unprecedented.” Summarizing recent cases of unintentional caffeine overdoses and caffeine poisoning, the article claims that “a person would need to ingest at least 12 of the highly caffeinate energy drinks within a few hours” to reach a lethal dose of caffeine. Sepkowitz argues, however, that this estimate does not take into account variables such as medications that may slow the metabolism of caffeine or preexisting cardiac or liver conditions “that could increase susceptibility to caffeine-related adverse events.” “The appropriate…
The Council of Better Business Bureaus’ National Advertising Division (NAD) has reportedly decided to review “no crash later” claims made by Living Essentials LLC about its caffeinated energy supplement 5-Hour Energy® after The New York Times published a January 2, 2013, article questioning the scientific evidence behind such assertions. According to media sources, NAD ruled in 2007 that Living Essentials could not support its unequivocal “no crash” claims, even though its product evidently causes less of an energy level reduction than beverages made by its competitors. As a result, Living Essentials modified its labeling to include an asterisk on its “no crash later” declaration, but NAD has apparently advised the company to drop the claim altogether or submit to a compliance review. See Law360, January 3, 2013. The claim now facing NAD scrutiny also caught the attention of Times writer Barry Meier, who noted that energy drink manufacturers demand premium prices…
New Canadian regulations that took effect January 1, 2013, have reclassified energy drinks as food instead of natural health products and capped their caffeine content at 180 mg per serving. First proposed in 2011, the regulations aim to address concerns that consumers imbibing such beverages could exceed the maximum caffeine intake levels recommended by Health Canada. “Therefore, Health Canada conducted a scientific assessment of the potential hazards and exposure associated with the common ingredients found in these caffeinated beverages (including caffeine, vitamins, minerals, taurine etc.),” stated the agency, which ultimately reported that children and adolescents were “most at risk of exceeding Health Canada’s Recommended Maximum Daily Intakes (RMDI) for caffeine because of the volumes potentially consumed and the lower RMDI established for these populations, in comparison to adults.” In particular, the new regulations establish “an initial maximum limit for total caffeine of 400 mg per liter with a maximum amount…
A plaintiff who claims he began consuming Monster Beverage energy drinks as a teenager, because he was offered free beverages from a truck parked outside his high school, has filed a putative nationwide consumer-fraud class action against the company in a California federal court. Fisher v. Monster Beverage Corp., No. 12-02188 (C.D. Cal., filed December 12, 2012). Among other matters, he claims that the company aggressively markets the products to youth and falsely labels them as dietary supplements to avoid regulation under Food and Drug Administration beverage rules. He further contends that the products are addictive. Alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages; corrective labeling, advertising and marketing; full restitution and disgorgement; and interest.
