Hacker News Reader

Comment by zlurker | Hacker News Reader

It's a bit frustrating reading this article, There's clearly two different problems going on here.

Claiming your filling is 100% tuna or that your drink is made with aged vanilla, when both are completely untrue are just outright lies to deceive people. Companies doing this should legally be required to change their ways.

On the other hand, redbull not literally giving you wings is obvious. Only a child would literally believe this. There's a stark contrast between this and expecting açai in a "strawberry açai" drink.

View on HN

The actual claim in the Red Bull case isn’t that the drinker doesn’t get wings, but instead:

> 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.

To be fair, the red bull one is the only real outlier here, and it's only one sentence in the article. And the actual lawsuit wasn't about getting actual wings anyway.

Its a long rich history from PRopaganda against consumers.. the mc donalds coffee lady comes two mind, were mc donalds tried to ditch the medical costs for 3rd degree burns and put her up as a ambulance chaser.

Yeah somewhat like the “moron in a hurry” standard.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry

>On the other hand, redbull not literally giving you wings is obvious. Only a child would literally believe this.

Those words in blue are links. If you click them, you can read the article that line references and learn what the lawsuit was actually about:

>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.

> On the other hand, redbull not literally giving you wings is obvious. Only a child would literally believe this

That was _not_ the claim made in the relevant lawsuit; see the linked article.

To be fair to OP, in the context of the US legal system it wouldn't be unheard of for such an absurd lawsuit to be filed and settled, and the article we're discussing doesn't clarify what was actually meant.

See Pepsi and the Harrier jet:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

There's a pretty big difference between the Pepsi Harrier case and puffery from Red Bull about it giving you wings.

Pepsi attached a value to a Harrier and included it in their catalog with other items you could purchase with pepsi points; it was the only item you could not buy with them.

I'm not saying a judge would rule in favor of a Red Bull plaintiff complaining about wings (the court ruled against the plaintiff in the Pepsi case), I'm saying that it's not unreasonable to interpret the reference in the article literally. Several people have done it, and in the context of the US legal system it's understandable.

> Pepsi attached a value to a Harrier and included it in their catalog with other items you could purchase with pepsi points

It wasn't in the catalog, it was in a single commercial that most people interpreted as a joke, likely including the plaintiff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdackF2H7Qc

But to be clear, the Red Bull lawsuit was _not about wings_, it was about unsubstantiated medical/performance enhancing claims made about the product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com