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.

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

  • FoundTheVegan
    11•1 year ago

    was advertised as a “plant-based and clean” beverage that contained as much caffeine as the restaurant’s dark roast coffee, according to photos of both the menu and beverage dispensers in the store

    But at 390 milligrams, the large Charged Lemonade has more caffeine than any size of Panera’s dark roast coffee, the complaint says — numbers that the nutrition facts on Panera’s website confirm. It also has guarana extract, another stimulant, as well as the equivalent of nearly 30 teaspoons of sugar

    The marketing was factually wrong and very misleading.

    • @abraxas@sh.itjust.works
      3•1 year ago

      The complete quotes in the marketing (the article made the odd decision to quote PART OF the caffeine description out-of-context) are:

      “Plant-based, clean caffeine powered by guarana & green coffee extract”.

      and

      “Plant-based and Clean with as much caffeine as our Dark Roast coffee”

      I would call that marketing accurate and correct. Except one thing… It’s a fact that one ounce of their lemonade has significantly less caffeine (about 2/3) than one ounce of their dark roast coffee, and dramatically less than their light roast coffee. Could you have guessed that from the quotes? Because my first point of note is that they’re incorrect about it having “as much caffeine as our Dark Roast”.

      the large Charged Lemonade has more caffeine than any size of Panera’s dark roast coffee

      This is also both misleading and carefully worded. It’s comparing a 16oz cup to a 30oz cup, both sold with unlimited refills, and leaving out that the Charged Lemonade is not even the highest-caffeine item on the menu.

      I would say the article is factually wrong and misleading. The problem is, we don’t know the full details of the complaint, which might actually be valid. The article, however, is not doing it justice.