Sarah Katz, 21, had a heart condition and was not aware of the drink’s caffeine content, which exceeded that of cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks combined, according to a legal filing
The warning has to be reasonable for its purpose. Intended and likely to reach the consumer, and to be understood. It’s meant to fairly apprise consumers of the material risks.
There is nothing resembling a warning. That’s fine if it’s just regular lemonade. It seems to me to be positioned as basically regular lemonade and otherwise indistinguishable except for “charged,” “# mg caffiene,” and “natural ingredients.”
This information seems inadequate based on the seriousness and likelihood of the material risk. The girl’s condition is apparently pretty common, the seriousness of the danger is deathly, and the likelihood that consumers in the girl’s position are as likely as not to understand the danger. More is required.
The average consumer does not know about dosages of caffeine in milligrams, and possible side effects. The labeling seems hardly likely to inform a consumer that one glass of lemonade they are about to drink is the equivalent of drinking three cups of coffee. Who the fuck puts caffiene into lemonade? Is it even lemonade?
Edit: speech to text has gotten worse lately. Also, I have to wonder whether anyone asked for this product? I wonder what the focus groups said. Did they even do them? The more I think of this the worse the idea seems.
