But the class-action lawsuit, which began in January 2013, cited evidence in The New York Times, Nutrition Reviews and the European Food Safety Authority Journal that indicated energy drinks provide their boost through caffeine alone, not guarana or any other ingredient.
As a result, Mr Careathers argued, Red Bull’s performance-enhancing properties could only be tested by the quantity of caffeine in each can, which worked out more expensive that a cup of coffee from Starbucks.
“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,” the suit said.
“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.”
