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

**calvin mclain** · 03 November 2014, 03:46 AM

They probably don't have to pay for personal information. When they advertise the company website, you visit it maybe then Google analytics serves up information in real time data about the unique visitors to their site. It will even tell you country origin of your visitors.

**Big Frank** · 03 November 2014, 12:58 PM

Proxy server / VPN. I can change country at will.

**Big Frank** · 03 November 2014, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by wizard509

Yes we all know RedBull doesn't give you wings and I'll bet that guy did too. He was just looking for a quick way to get rich. So I say shame on him.

I say WELL DONE to him. It's about time people took seriously the fact that we are lied to on a permanent basis by advertising. Let's see more lawsuits, more and more and more. Sue the hell out of those people who persuade fat or spotty women to buy slimming on clear skin creams that simply don't work. Sue the hell out of those who persuade the weak willed that wearing one type of perfume will help you get laid. I have nothing against advertisers, but I do against liars.

**mwenz** · 03 November 2014, 02:07 PM

There is a difference between using hyperbole and lying. I believe the Red Bull case is the former. Lawsuits like this should never see court action. Should have been tossed out immediately.

Mike

**Big Frank** · 07 November 2014, 11:21 AM

The difference between using hyperbole and lying is semantic when your target audience do not see the difference. It maybe does not refer to "flying" in the scientific sense. But if so, what does it refer to? The court clearly agreed and I'm pleased it did. When I advertise my services, and I do, I have no problem that my claims should not only be accurate but verifiably so. Advertisers do their utmost to mislead the customer into buying the product and anything that stops them doing so is OK in my book.

**mwenz** · 07 November 2014, 01:04 PM

Oh, Frank. What they did was settle a nuisance suit before going to court. It was merely cheaper than their lawyers plus the unpredictable nature of a jury...X number of which they know will award something all the while wishing they had thought of suing. That's the nature of people.

**Big Frank** · 07 November 2014, 01:14 PM

Buying a cheap chemical cocktail sold on a street corner as a health elixir because a charlatan knows how to play people and is unconcerned that he is spinning lies. That's the nature of people. And that's why, in a society obsessed with protecting us against Jihad terrorists, we should also have institutions around that guard the weak, the uneducated and the impressionable against those charlatans.

**Egg Bramhill** · 07 November 2014, 07:18 PM

I'm with Frank on this one. It reminds me of all the people you see around buying/carrying bottled water. WTF is that all about? I can't remember a single case of someone keeling over and dying from drinking tap water in the UK. However people seem quite happy about buying bottles of water at well above the price of the equivalent quantity of fuel

"Bottled Water gives you Water Wings".

**mwenz** · 07 November 2014, 07:57 PM

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.

There is a TV commercial on here in the US that shows how the people who sleep there gain extra-intelligence. Again, no reasonable person will believe the "claim." There is a line item in all corporate financials for the settling of nuisance suits. Settling such suits is not only cheaper but stock holders see it as prudent. Sometimes it just isn't better to prove who's right and wrong.

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.

**Gamerprinter** · 07 November 2014, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Egg Bramhill

I'm with Frank on this one. It reminds me of all the people you see around buying/carrying bottled water. WTF is that all about?

I remember the movie 1984 with John Hurt, and there's a scene in a cafeteria where glass bottled water was a part of the lunch provided. I remember thinking, "Why would a single serving of water need to be bottled?" I found the idea (at the time) very strange. Can't you just drink a glass from the tap, why buy a bottle of it? Needless to say, the modern concept of buying bottles of water in a store, I still find as out of the ordinary, despite its prevalence today.