What Happened
The lawsuit focused on the brand’s long-running slogan and marketing that, according to plaintiffs, suggested measurable gains in focus, reaction speed, and overall performance not proven beyond what you would expect from caffeine. The company ultimately agreed to a nationwide class settlement without admitting wrongdoing. The case became a touchstone example in advertising law and consumer protection discussions.
Timeline
- 2013: Class action filed in federal court.
- 2014: Settlement terms announced publicly; administration and notice period begin.
- 2015: Final approval and claims window closure; settlement administration concludes.
During this period, widespread media coverage amplified public interest, and the case entered marketing textbooks and legal blogs as a modern puffery vs. claims example.
What the Lawsuit Claimed
Plaintiffs argued that campaign language and imagery communicated more than a fanciful tagline. They alleged it implied functional superiority—for example, sharper concentration or faster reactions—without adequate scientific substantiation beyond standard caffeine effects found in everyday beverages. The claim did not hinge on a literal interpretation of growing wings; it addressed the overall message about real-world performance.
The $13M Settlement and Payouts
The settlement created a fund of roughly $13 million to resolve claims nationwide. Eligible consumers could request either a cash payment (about $10) or a product voucher (about $15) during the open claims window. The company did not admit liability as part of the resolution. As with most class actions, deadlines applied and the administration phase eventually closed.
Puffery vs. False Advertising
Puffery is the kind of obvious exaggeration or opinion that consumers are not expected to take literally, such as a boastful superlative. However, when advertising communicates or implies specific, measurable benefits—especially about health, cognition, or performance—those statements typically require competent and reliable scientific evidence. The case is widely cited to illustrate how a playful slogan can intersect with implied claims once broader messaging and context are considered.
Status Today
The claims process for this settlement is long closed. Consumers who were eligible needed to file within the original window. The matter remains relevant mainly as a reference point for modern advertising standards and consumer-protection enforcement.
Marketing and Legal Lessons
- Keep slogans clearly fanciful: Ensure your tagline reads as obvious hyperbole, not a promise of measurable outcomes.
- Substantiate performance claims: Any express or implied statements about focus, energy, or reaction time should be supported by sound evidence.
- Consider the full context: Ads, packaging, influencer content, and websites together can create implied messages that require proof.
- Plan for class exposure: Broad consumer classes and long look-back periods can multiply risk and cost in a dispute.
- Maintain documentation: Keep testing, methodology, and expert support organized and audit-ready.
FAQs
Did the company admit wrongdoing?
No. The settlement resolved the case without an admission of liability.
How much did people receive?
Eligible claimants could request either a cash payment (about ten dollars) or a product voucher (about fifteen dollars) during the claims window.
Was this about literally growing wings?
No. The dispute focused on whether the overall marketing implied real-world performance benefits without adequate scientific backing.
Is the settlement still open?
No. The administration period closed years ago.
Conclusion
The “red bull gives you wings lawsuit” became a landmark example of how creative branding can blur into implied performance claims. Its central lesson is durable: keep slogans playful, keep performance statements provable, and keep evidence ready. For consumers, the case underscores a healthy skepticism toward marketing that hints at measurable benefits without showing its homework.
