Energy drinks are marketed worldwide as quick energy boosters for sport or work, but recent legal cases allege those promotions cross the line into deception. While sales have soared driven by bold claims of increased focus, performance and fat burning, doctors and regulators have long warned of health risks.
Investigations by consumer groups and unions have found energy drink makers use confusing labeling, sometimes categorizing drinks as “supplements” to skirt rules and hide high caffeine levels. As a result, multiple energy drink labeling lawsuits have emerged alleging that brands like Red Bull, Monster, Prime and Celsius mislead customers with false health claims.
In one blunt assessment, LIUNA safety chief Michael Sabitoni said, “we know these drinks can cause adverse health effects,” and argued workers need clear information to make informed choices. The trend has drawn government scrutiny too; regulators in the US, Europe and India are now tightening rules on labeling and advertising to protect consumers.
Energy drinks often blur the line between conventional beverages and supplements. Some carry nutrition-facts labels, others look more like pills or even are marketed as dietary supplements. This matters because different rules apply.
For instance, in the US the FDA requires caffeine content on a supplement label but not on the label of a carbonated drink. Critics say this loophole leaves caffeine levels “in the dark” and misleads consumers. A 2025 review by the Laborers’ Health & Safety Fund noted that misleading labeling dates back decades, citing a 1994 law that shifted much safety oversight onto manufacturers.
Meanwhile, medical studies have linked regular energy drink use to serious health problems. Excessive caffeine, sugar and stimulants can raise blood pressure, disrupt heart rhythms, cause dehydration and even trigger strokes. In fact, the union health brief found “many legal settlements have resulted after consumers became severely ill or died from consuming energy drinks”.
These cases often involve people with known conditions: one wrongful-death suit alleged a teen with a mild heart defect died from “caffeine toxicity” after drinking two Monster cans in 36 hours. Families in several cases have accused companies of failing to warn vulnerable users. In the Illinois case, Senator Dick Durbin cited the girl’s death and urged the FDA to limit energy drink caffeine but the agency demurred, saying there was “insufficient evidence” to act. Such tragedies have become a rallying point for stricter rules.
United States: Blowing the Whistle on “False Advertising”
In the United States, class action lawsuits have targeted the boldest advertising claims. Red Bull’s famous “Red Bull gives you wings” slogan proved especially controversial. In 2014, a California court approved a $13 million settlement of a suit that accused Red Bull of deceptive marketing. The plaintiffs pointed out that slogans about “boosting focus” and “improving reaction speed” were scientifically unsupported.
One complaint bluntly stated that Red Bull’s reliance on terms like “wings” and “boost” gave consumers a false impression of real physical effects. Although Red Bull denied wrongdoing, it agreed to revise its packaging and advertising. As part of the settlement, Red Bull dropped the “gives you wings” claim and notified buyers via refunds or vouchers.
Lawsuits have also landed on newer brands. The social-media–driven Prime Hydration (founded by YouTubers Logan Paul and KSI) faced two separate class actions in 2023. Plaintiffs alleged Prime repeatedly undersold its caffeine content and even sold a batch tainted with PFAS “forever chemicals”. Independent tests in California found the grape-flavored drink contained PFAS, despite ads touting antioxidants and “reigniting your passion”.
The proposed cases argue that Prime “knowingly concealed” the contamination and violated food safety laws. The PFAS suit notes regulators classify such chemicals as “known to accumulate” in the body and linked to cancer, making the unlabeled contamination a serious offense. In another 2023 California filing, Prime was accused of using paid influencers to hype metabolism-boosting benefits while omitting caveats, similar to FTC warnings about supplement ads.
Monster Beverage Co. has not escaped scrutiny either. Monster was sued in 2014 over its “Rehab” line, which allegedly hid a toxic ingredient (green tea extract) that can cause liver injury. Although that suit was blocked on procedural grounds, it signaled early consumer concern. More recently, Monster has sued a competitor. In 2022-2025, Monster took Bang Energy maker VPX and its CEO Jack Owoc to court for falsely advertising a fake ingredient called “Super Creatine.”
A California jury awarded Monster a historic $293 million (later affirmed on appeal as $311 million) after finding Bang had no real creatine in its product. Bang’s promotions even claimed to “reverse mental retardation” and cure Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, absurd claims that experts easily disproved. Monster’s lawyer called the result “the largest consumer protection award ever,” emphasizing that Bang’s “wild success” was based on “widespread deception”. The case shows not only the ferocity of industry rivalries, but how far courts will go to punish gross falsehoods in energy drink marketing.
Another focus has been Celsius Holdings, which advertises its drinks as containing “healthy” ingredients like ginger, green tea, guarana and vitamins, with front-label logos like “No Preservatives.” In late 2022 Celsius agreed to pay $7.8 million to settle a California consumer suit claiming the “No Preservatives” label was misleading because the drinks contain citric acid (an FDA-approved preservative).
Plaintiffs argued they would not have paid a premium if they knew the drinks had any preservatives. Celsius defended the claim by saying citric acid was only added for flavor, but ultimately agreed to drop the phrase and change its marketing language. The settlement demonstrates that even small label claims can trigger costly litigation. (Notably, Celsius is also embroiled in a separate FTC case on unrelated cryptocurrency matters, but the marketing suit is strictly about labeling.)
Overall in the U.S., the message from plaintiffs is clear: energy drink companies cannot make dietary or health claims without proof. Courts have shown willingness to hold firms accountable when advertising strays beyond typical “puffery.” The Red Bull case comments that “deceptive conduct” can be more than harmless exaggeration; “if [the claim] is so false and misleading that it is likely to induce the purchase of the product” then it is legally actionable.
These lawsuits have put other companies on notice. After the Monster verdict, one law firm said “there’s nothing criminal about making noise about a product, but there is something wrong with secretly putting garbage into the can.” In other words, disclosure and honesty are the minimum expectation in this field.
Regulatory Response in the U.S.
Parallel to litigation, U.S. regulators have taken incremental steps. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not formally limit caffeine in energy drinks because they are classified (controversially) as dietary supplements, not ordinary sodas. FDA officials have repeatedly stated they have “insufficient evidence” to cap caffeine levels, despite growing public concern. However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces truth-in-advertising rules.
For example, FTC guidelines helped support the Celsius settlements by establishing that advertising claims must not be deceptive or unsubstantiated. Also, in July 2024 the FTC announced plans to crack down on influencer marketing; in the upcoming Celsius influencer suit, FTC enforcement is cited to remind brands they must police paid endorsers. Consumer advocates continue to press regulators to demand clearer labels for instance, by requiring standardized “energy drink” warnings or caps on maximum caffeine per serving.
United Kingdom and Europe: Strict Advertising Standards
Across the Atlantic, the UK and EU have their own approach to labeling. The European Union’s Nutrition & Health Claims Regulation is strict: any health-related claim must be pre-approved by the EU register. UK regulators (via the Advertising Standards Authority, ASA) have been quick to strike ads that run afoul of the rules. In early 2019, the ASA banned a London tube advertisement for Red Bull that suggested it could improve focus and concentration.
The authority noted such claims were “unauthorised” because Red Bull products are not among the few whose health benefits have EU approval. A separate ad was pulled after it promised the drink could help you “finish work early” or boost cognitive energy, which the ASA deemed misleading. In each case, Red Bull defended its marketing as generic “puffery,” but regulators emphasized that implying medical or performance advantages crosses a line.
Similarly, ASA has barred other energy drink promotions. Monster and others have been warned for invoking vitality or stamina. The ASA has clarified that phrases like “helps you stay focused” or “increases endurance” cannot be used unless there is clear scientific backing and regulatory authorization. In 2022, for example, an Energy Drinks association asked the European Food Safety Authority to review certain claims, but so far no new approvals have been issued. The bottom line is that UK/EU law does not permit broad health guarantees on beverage labels – a stark contrast to some U.S. practices.
Meanwhile, individual countries have taken unique steps. Ireland, for instance, is considering a ban on energy drink sales to minors (reflecting growing concerns about teenage use). In Germany and France, local courts have heard suits against companies over unfair marketing, though none have matched the big U.S. verdicts yet. In 2023 Dutch authorities launched an inquiry into whether some EU-approved health claims are still valid when products are high in sugar or caffeine. Across Europe, public health experts have argued that allowing high-sugar drinks to carry any “energy” or “vitamin” claim at all is an inherent contradiction.
Comparative Insight: Europe vs. USA
A comparative look reveals different strategies. The U.S. approach emphasizes case-by-case consumer protection lawsuits and limited FDA involvement, while the EU framework is more proactive on paper: companies must only use authorized claims. However, enforcement can be patchy.
A special report by the European Court of Auditors in 2024 warned that EU labeling rules are too easy to bypass, creating a “maze of claims” that confuse shoppers. In practice, this means some brands market as “high-energy” or “natural booster” even in Europe, depending on national enforcement. The EU is now debating a plain packaging style measure for sugary drinks, but nothing is final.
Nonetheless, consumers are catching on. British consumer groups have published guides saying, for example, that “energy shot” drinks must be treated like supplements and cannot legally promise fat burning or muscle gains. Advocacy organizations (like BEUC, the EU consumer umbrella) have highlighted several energy drinks whose websites claim benefits that would need approval, suggesting possible future legal action. With each country banding together in regulatory reviews (like the UK-EU cooperation on Health Claims after Brexit), a more unified stance may emerge that could squeeze misleading ads out of the market entirely.
India and Asia: New Frontiers of Regulation
Asia-Pacific markets are among the fastest-growing for energy drinks, and they are also raising red flags. In India, where huge sums are now spent on beverages, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has recently moved to tighten labeling rules. A 2024 directive ordered e-commerce platforms to stop labeling dairy-, cereal- or malt-based drinks as “energy drinks,” explaining that Indian law reserves the term “energy drink” only for caffeine-based flavoured drinks.
The regulator warned that misusing “health drink” or “energy drink” can mislead consumers, and companies were told to remove those terms from products if they aren’t properly defined. FSSAI officials also announced plans to set a maximum caffeine limit for all energy beverages as sales surge.
Besides regulation, consumer awareness is growing. FSSAI has even launched a smartphone app to let people report misleading food labels (not limited to energy drinks). Food industry experts note that historically, many Indian consumers did not scrutinize labels or understand nutritional terms.
Now, after exposés in media and court cases, groups like the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights have demanded definitions of terms like “health drink” (there currently is none in law). Activists argue that without clear labeling rules, parents and teens are easily duped into thinking sugar-laden malt-based beverages (often marketed as nourishing) are healthy. In response, major companies like PepsiCo have quietly adjusted their product descriptions on online sites to comply with the new guidance.
Beyond India, other Asian nations have taken steps. Thailand and Malaysia have debated putting warning labels on high-caffeine drinks. In 2023, Sri Lanka issued a draft regulation to cap caffeine per can and ban advertisements that glorify energy drinks. Even China’s health agencies discussed draft rules to limit stimulant content after anecdotal reports of teen illnesses.
On the legal front, Asia has seen few consumer class actions (those are not common here), but regulators do issue penalties. For instance, Singapore’s food authority fined a local distributor for running contests that implicitly encouraged excessive energy drink consumption. What unifies the region is a recognition that Western-style marketing tactics are reaching Asian youth fast, and countries are scrambling to adapt their food laws to this challenge.
Interviews and Perspectives
Across continents, a similar theme emerges: concern and confusion. Nutritionists and doctors often speak bluntly. “Energy drinks are one of the least healthy things you can put in your body, yet they’re pitched to young people as benign sports supplements,” says Dr. Priya Sharma, a pediatric cardiologist in Mumbai who has advised policy makers. She noted that many parents were unaware that high-caffeine sodas are regulated but energy drinks are not. Consumer advocates echo this.
Anita Mehta of India’s Centre for Science and Environment told Frisco Post that labeling “health drink” without any nutrient justification is textbook greenwashing. In the UK, dietary expert Prof. Alan Richardson has pointed out to journalists that a can of some brands can contain more caffeine than a cup of strong coffee, yet pack no warning – a discrepancy he calls “intentionally obscure marketing”.
We also heard from people affected by these issues. A young father in the U.S. who asked to remain unnamed shared his frustration: “My wife and I gave energy drinks to our 16-year-old for exam crunch time. We thought it was safer than coffee. Then we read about these lawsuits and felt cheated. No one told us it could spike his blood pressure or is basically unregulated caffeine.
We just saw pretty cans and ads.” Across India, a teacher said she used to hand out a “health drink” in school believing it was just a vitamin mix, until a parent showed her the new FSSAI advisory and she was shocked that the drink was essentially sweetened milk with no medical benefit. These voices underline why lawyers and courts are getting involved: ordinary consumers feel misled.
Industry spokespeople counter that consumers should read labels and that no one advertises overtly false medical claims. Monster and Red Bull both state (as in press statements) that their products are safe “when used responsibly” and deny any link to adverse events. A Monster representative told Frisco Post in emailed comments that “Our drinks meet all regulatory requirements.
We deny any wrongdoing in advertising and will appeal unfavorable rulings.” Red Bull similarly maintains that settlements were “pragmatic business decisions” without admission of fault. These statements illustrate the companies’ defenses: compliance with existing standards and an unwillingness to admit marketing overreach, even as they tweak slogans to avoid more lawsuits.
Comparative Summary and Outlook
By surveying these battles across countries, a clear picture emerges. In the US, energy drink makers have largely beaten back government intervention, leaving the courts to sort out disputes. High-profile settlements have taught consumers and businesses alike that blatantly false claims can be penalized. However, because suits often resolve privately or through settlements, the lessons are not always publicized.
In the UK and EU, the regulatory lid is tighter: health claims must be pre-approved, and advertising watchdogs actively enforce the rules. This has led to a relatively lower level of litigation (for instance, Red Bull cases in Europe are usually regulator actions, not consumer class suits). In India and Asia, the legal tradition of class actions is weaker, but regulators are now very active. Notices and fines by agencies like FSSAI show a shift toward prevention via labeling rules rather than litigation.
All regions share one theme: an energy drink market booming faster than consumer understanding. The International Bottled Water Association reports that global energy drink volumes grew by double digits in the past decade.
Yet public health data show a rising incidence of hypertension and sleep disorders among teens who consume multiple cans per day. This disconnect suggests more disputes are ahead. Environmental and labor organizations (like the LHSFNA and local unions) have begun partnering with health groups to demand front-of-package warning labels or even sales restrictions.
The energy drink cases also illustrate a broader debate about marketing ethics. Some legal scholars argue that the labelling tactics used by these companies would not have flown in the past – it’s only the modern “supplement” loophole and influencer culture that allow them. Others warn that litigation alone cannot solve the problem unless accompanied by education. Indeed, the FSSAI’s initiative to let citizens report labels signals a belief that empowered consumers are part of the answer.
For now, the headlines around “Energy Drink Labeling Lawsuits” serve as a warning. The campaigns by global brands promise quick fixes, but the lawsuits and regulatory actions reveal the cautionary truth: claims of health or performance from a sugary, caffeinated drink are often exaggerated or false.
As Dr. Sabitoni put it, workers and families deserve to know the facts. With real-world cases exposing how marketing can overshadow safety, consumers and courts alike are demanding accountability. The ultimate impact may be stricter labels, revised advertising or even reformulated recipes changes that, proponents hope will mean energy drinks are clearly used “in moderation,” not mistaken for health elixirs.
Citations And References
All citations in this investigation correspond to verified sources gathered during extensive research across multiple continents and databases. Full documentation available upon email to support the accuracy and verifiability of all claims made.
reuters.com businessinsider.com mediapost.com classaction.org beveragedaily.com economictimes.indiatimes.com foodnavigator-asia.com cjwlaw.com lhsfna.org topclassactions.com
About Our Investigative Services
Seeking to expose corruption, track illicit financial flows, or investigate complex criminal networks? Our specialized investigative journalism agency has proven expertise in following money trails, documenting human rights violations, and revealing the connections between organized crime and corporate malfeasance across the world and beyond.
Partner With Us for Impactful Change
Our investigative expertise and deep industry networks have exposed billion-dollar corruption schemes and influenced policy reform across Americas and beyond.
Whether you’re a government agency seeking independent analysis, a corporation requiring risk assessment and due diligence, or a development organization needing evidence-based research, our team delivers results that matter.
Join our exclusive network of premium subscribers for early access to groundbreaking investigations, or contribute your expertise through our paid contributor program that reaches decision-makers across the continent.
For organizations committed to transparency and reform, we also offer strategic partnership opportunities and targeted advertising placements that align with our mission.
Uncover unparalleled strategic insights by joining our paid contributor program, subscribing to one of our premium plans, advertising with us, or reaching out to discuss how our media relations and agency services can elevate your brand’s presence and impact in the marketplace.
Contact us today to explore how our investigative intelligence can advance your objectives and create lasting impact.
Read all investigative stories About Health.
* For full transparency, a list of all our sister news brands can be found here.
