It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Red Bull DOESN'T give you wings: Energy drink giant to cough up £8.1m over false advertising lawsu

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
So many people did not even finish the op let alone read the link... I'm feeling self righteous now because this is one of the times where I did read the whole thread hehe.




posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

Definitely one of the stupider lawsuits.
Of course it doesn't give you wing.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: prisoneronashipoffools

Direct hit to their advertising campaign . Redbull would be loving this lawsuit . 13 million ,about one weeks sponsorship for their F1 campaign . Everyone thinks its about wings . The fact people are talking about this here means its all good for redbull.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:38 AM
link   
So coffee gives you more of a boost.
And people are suing?

Jeez!
edit on 13-10-2014 by stargatetravels because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:41 AM
link   
I am speechless. Are judges in the US really that stupid?? Whether it helps or hinders Red Bull is beside the point. Cases like this should be laughed at and thrown out before they get anywhere near a court room.
edit on 13-10-2014 by Mogget because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2014 by Mogget because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Mogget

A lady won a lawsuit for spilling coffee that she just got on herself because it was hot.
And the cup was not marked hot.
If that tells you anything.
edit on 13-10-2014 by HarbingerOfShadows because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows

A lady won a lawsuit for spilling coffee that she just got on herself because it was hot.
And the cup was not marked hot.
If that tells you anything.


I don't want to sound rude, but I really hate it when people use this example as a litmus test for frivolous lawsuits. The woman in question was over 80 years old and was terribly scalded by the coffee in her 'bathing suit area' and inner thighs, requiring skin grafts and physical therapy.

The coffee was served in excess of 170* F and it was not McDonalds first offense. The restaurant that served the woman the hot coffee had been cited on previous occasions for serving beverages well above a safe temperature.



And some excerpts from the case file:



Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts.

McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs.

McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Such burns require skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments to heal, and the resulting scarring is typically permanent.

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, usually slightly but sometimes seriously, resulting in some number of other claims and lawsuits.

Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it is too hot.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Well someone just has to sue Lynx:




new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join