[lolinder]

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.

See Pepsi and the Harrier jet:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

[ameister14]

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.

[lolinder]

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdackF2H7Qc

[rsynnott]

But to be clear, the Red Bull lawsuit was _not about wings_, it was about unsubstantiated medical/performance enhancing claims made about the product.