You’ve probably heard the punchline at a bar or seen the meme on your feed. Some "genius" actually sued Red Bull because, after chugging a can, he didn’t sprout literal feathers and fly away. It sounds like the peak of frivolous litigation—the kind of story that makes you roll your eyes at the state of the legal system.
But honestly? That's not what happened. Not even close.
The real story of the guy sues red bull saga is actually a fascinating look at how big companies use "sciencey" language to justify premium prices. It wasn't about a man lacking common sense; it was about a multi-billion dollar brand being called out for claiming its drink was a high-tech performance enhancer when it was basically just a pricey cup of coffee.
The Man Behind the Lawsuit: Benjamin Careathers
In 2013, a man named Benjamin Careathers filed a class-action lawsuit against Red Bull North America. He wasn't some guy who thought he’d become a bird. He was a regular consumer who had been drinking the stuff since 2002.
His argument was focused. He didn't claim he was waiting for wings to pop out of his back. Instead, he argued that Red Bull’s entire marketing machine—from the "Gives You Wings" slogan to their sponsorship of extreme sports—was designed to trick people into thinking the drink provided a functional benefit that it simply didn't have.
Careathers' legal team pointed out that Red Bull marketed itself as a "superior source of energy." They promised increased concentration and faster reaction speeds. But when you looked at the actual chemistry? There was nothing in there to back it up.
It Wasn't About the Wings, It Was About the Caffeine
Here is the kicker that most people miss: the lawsuit was really about the coffee comparison.
✨ Don't miss: Cox Tech Support Business Needs: What Actually Happens When the Internet Quits
The core of the complaint was that an 8.4-ounce can of Red Bull contains about 80 milligrams of caffeine. For context, a similar-sized cup of premium coffee often contains significantly more. Yet, Red Bull was charging a massive premium for their "functional" beverage, claiming it was somehow more effective than cheaper alternatives thanks to ingredients like taurine and B-vitamins.
Careathers argued that "Red Bull Gives You Wings" wasn't just "puffery"—the legal term for harmless promotional exaggeration. He claimed it was a deceptive promise of a physiological boost that the drink couldn't deliver.
"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." — Excerpt from the 2013 complaint.
The lawsuit cited studies, including ones from the European Food Safety Authority, which suggested that caffeine was the only thing in these drinks actually doing any heavy lifting. The other "special" ingredients? Mostly marketing fluff.
The $13 Million Settlement That Changed Everything
Red Bull didn't want to fight this in a long, drawn-out trial. Even though they denied any wrongdoing, they chose to settle.
In 2014, the company agreed to pay $13 million into a settlement fund. This wasn't because they admitted the "wings" were a lie, but because they wanted to avoid the "cost and distraction of litigation."
🔗 Read more: Canada Tariffs on US Goods Before Trump: What Most People Get Wrong
This settlement meant that anyone in the U.S. who had bought a Red Bull between January 1, 2002, and October 3, 2014, was eligible for a piece of the pie. You didn't even need a receipt. You just had to sign a form saying you bought it.
The options were:
- A $10 cash refund (sent via check).
- $15 worth of Red Bull products (usually a four-pack of cans).
The internet, naturally, went into a frenzy. So many people signed up for the free money that the website crashed repeatedly. Because the $13 million was a fixed cap, the more people who joined the class, the smaller the individual checks became. By the time the dust settled, most people didn't get $10. They got significantly less—some reports say around $4.25—because millions of people jumped on the "free money" bandwagon.
Why This Case Still Matters Today
This wasn't just a weird news blip. The guy sues red bull case actually forced the company to change how it talks to us.
If you look at their ads now, you’ll notice they are much more careful. They still use the "Wings" slogan because it's iconic, but they’ve toned down the specific scientific claims about what the drink does to your brain and body.
It also set a massive precedent for "functional" food and drinks. It told companies: "You can use metaphors, but if you claim your product has a specific physical effect to justify a high price, you better have the peer-reviewed studies to back it up."
💡 You might also like: Bank of America Orland Park IL: What Most People Get Wrong About Local Banking
Facts vs. Fiction: Clearing the Air
Let's set the record straight on a few things that people always get wrong about this case:
- Did he think he'd fly? No. Benjamin Careathers explicitly stated he knew the slogan was a metaphor for energy, not a promise of aviation.
- Did Red Bull stop using the slogan? No. They still use it globally, but they are much more careful about the "scientific superiority" claims that accompanied it.
- Was it a "win" for the guy? In a way, yes. While he didn't get $13 million personally (the money was split among the class and the lawyers), he forced one of the world's biggest brands to change its marketing tactics.
What You Can Learn From the Red Bull Lawsuit
Next time you see a product making big claims about "boosting your metabolism" or "increasing mental clarity," remember Benjamin.
- Check the ingredients: Often, the "secret sauce" is just a high dose of caffeine or sugar.
- Understand "Puffery": Brands are allowed to brag ("The Best Coffee in the World!"), but they aren't allowed to lie about specific functional results.
- Class Actions Matter: Even if you only get $4 back, these lawsuits are one of the few ways regular people can hold massive corporations accountable for what they put on their labels.
The "guy sues red bull" story is less about a silly mistake and more about the power of consumer protection law. It’s a reminder that even the biggest brands in the world have to play by the rules when it comes to the truth—even if they wrap that truth in a silver-and-blue can.
To stay protected as a consumer, always look for the "Supplement Facts" or "Nutrition Facts" label rather than the flashy slogans on the front. If a claim sounds too good to be true, it’s usually because it hasn't been verified by the FDA or similar regulatory bodies. You can also monitor sites like ClassAction.org to see if products you use regularly are currently facing similar challenges for deceptive labeling.
***