$13m lawsuit proves Red Bull doesn't give you wings

[Big Frank]

Nuisance lawsuits are just that. Use to be that advertising claims (such as this one) were judged by whether a reasonable person would not understand the hyperbole. I contend that no reasonable person can misunderstand their advertising.

I believe that is still a rule of thumb in most Western countries (in underdeveloped countries the rules are far more lax, to the delight of Western advertisers). However, that does not take into account the hundreds of times that that message is hammered at us from all directions. If you tell an intelligent child enough times that she is dumb and nothing in her environment tells her the opposite, then she will start to believe that she is dumb. That is the basic premise of advertising. And since many intelligent children are borne into families where institutionalised stupidity and reliance on reality TV reigns, the odds are against that child getting a balanced view of the value of the products being hammered at her. That's why taking a stand against Red Bull is important. If you want to indulge in the fantasy of "advertising is harmless" then be my guess. The odds are you believe drinking milk is both normal and good for you. If that is the case, thank advertising, not science.

But if you and Frank want to indulge in the fantasy that such suits serve the public interest, well, it is your right to do so.

I'll happily indulge in the fantasy all day long that anything that lessens the vice-like grip of advertisers on man and his dependants can only be a massive step forward for humanity.

There is a TV commercial on here in the US that shows how the people who sleep there gain extra-intelligence.

Hey, good luck with that... god knows America needs more intelligence. The French are just as stupid and gullible as any other nationality. They just get hammered by less (in quantity and perniciousness) advertising than Americans do.

Bottled drinking water. Please don't get me started on that one.