To be fair to OP, in the context of the US legal system it wouldn't be unheard of for such an absurd lawsuit to be filed and settled, and the article we're discussing doesn't clarify what was actually meant.
There's a pretty big difference between the Pepsi Harrier case and puffery from Red Bull about it giving you wings.
Pepsi attached a value to a Harrier and included it in their catalog with other items you could purchase with pepsi points; it was the only item you could not buy with them.
I'm not saying a judge would rule in favor of a Red Bull plaintiff complaining about wings (the court ruled against the plaintiff in the Pepsi case), I'm saying that it's not unreasonable to interpret the reference in the article literally. Several people have done it, and in the context of the US legal system it's understandable.
> Pepsi attached a value to a Harrier and included it in their catalog with other items you could purchase with pepsi points
It wasn't in the catalog, it was in a single commercial that most people interpreted as a joke, likely including the plaintiff.
See Pepsi and the Harrier jet:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.