Is the lawsuit against Red Bull regarding its misleading advertising justified?

  • Yes, the lawsuit against Red Bull is justified.

    Ever since it burst onto the consumer scene, Red Bull has pitched itself as a sort of miracle potion. Just as critics claim, the implications of Red Bull's ad campaigns have suggested that the drink somehow provided an energy boost on a whole other plane than that of simply drinking coffee or other caffeinated beverages. In truth, Red Bull does little more than coffee, and to imply otherwise simply to increase sales for the overpriced drink is extremely deceptive.

  • The lawsuit is ridiculously frivolous

    For plaintiffs to argue that they were misled by the phrase "gives you wings" is one of the most disingenuous ploys in legal history. No rational person did not know that was an advertising slogan designed to evoke an emotion. Perhaps the plaintiffs will now file a retroactive lawsuit against Calgon, since their detergent did not, in fact, "take them away."

  • Red Bull adverstisng is not misleading

    The Red Bull lawsuit was a waste of time. The whole things is based on misleading advertising. Among other things, their main slogan was "Red Bull gives you wings." I don't think that their ads are misleading, it's a great advertising campaign. Just because the product didn't work for the defendants, doesn't mean the advertising was misleading.

  • People know what Redbull is.

    No, the lawsuit against Red Bull regarding misleading advertising is not justified, because people know what Red Bull is. When you buy a Red Bull, you know you are getting a very strong energy drink. We all know by now that teenagers and young people should not use Red Bull at all. The consumer needs to beware a little bit, too.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.