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
Welp, this post might have just saved my life. I had no idea, and a heart condition.
Yeah, this is really serious. I hope people don’t construe this to be an absurd example of over litigation, while it is a completely reasonable case. Kind of like the McDonald’s coffee lady getting clowned on when she is a genuine victim.
We don’t know if it’s a completely reasonable case, yet. A few statements in the article would clearly cross the line of honest journalism if they weren’t quotations (IMO they still do). Specifically, I think quoting 3 words of their “has lots of caffeine” descriptive sign out-of-context was incredibly dishonest. Might as well comment that a “Do Not Enter” sign reads “Enter”. I mean it TECHNICALLY does, but let’s give the reader the full story and let us decide, and the “Do not” is important. Just like the second half of “Plant-based and Clean with as much caffeine as our Dark Roast coffee” is more contextually important than merely “Plant-based and clean”.
Is it possible the signs were smudged, missing, facing the wrong direction, or too small? Yeah, sure. But that’s not what the article is representing as the truth. Some of the quotes comparing the lemonade with the lower-caffeine “dark coffee” even seem nonsensical because the article is hiding the full context of the above quote, that the lemonade is advertised as “as much caffeine as our dark coffee”.
Just want to pop in and remind people that the supposed scourge of “frivolous lawsuits” was just a horribly effective PR stunt to drive down corporate accountability. If you feel wronged, sue if you can. Let a judge or jury decide.
However, it’s about preponderance of evidence, not “your favorite team”. Even if we have valid reasons not to like Panera, whether THIS lawsuit has merit should only have to do with the facts of the situation.
And the article was a lying sack of turd in response to that question. The article being sleazy doesn’t mean Panera is innocent, but it doesn’t mean they ain’t.
To that, I largely agree. But, given the state of income inequality and the general treatment of humans as mere consumers, to be manipulated and harvested… I think it’d be a disservice to us to view any corporate behavior with anything less than extreme skepticism.
Maybe even go as far as to work off the notion that corporations are guilty until proven innocent. Not individuals, but just the corporate entity.
Least based take
Absolutely. But sometimes “the bad guy” is innocent. Not every murder victim falls at Charlie Manson’s feet. Not person now dead that Charlie Manson once met was murdered by him. The problem is that we are so emotionally wired for revenge. Just look at a prosecutor whenever someone is DNA exonerated, screaming “we’re letting a monster free today!”
We need to fix the relationship between people and businesses, as the latter most certainly does exploit us. Socializing and forced ownership-sharing would be a great start. But I would never go so far as “guilty until proven innocent”. I think the preponderance standard should be enough. But that’s just me.
Also the part where she had the same thing to drink before.
I missed that line, and it blows the thing wide open. There’s no way someone with a heart condition who is avoiding caffeine couldn’t tell a LARGE Charged Lemonade was caffeinated after buying it on multiple occasions. Even if you’re “resistant” to caffeine, you’d feel something.
That’s because clickbait was a thing even before you clicked to get news.
That’s insane.