Bang Energy Class Action Says Drink’s Health Benefits are Exaggerated

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

The maker of Bang energy drinks, Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc., has been hit with class action lawsuit alleging the products’ health benefits are exaggerated.

Specifically, the Bang class action says labeling on the products touts the benefits of certain ingredients, including creatine, CoQ10, and amino acids.

Plaintiff Shirley St. Fort-Nwabuku says Bang does not contain those ingredients in an amount that would make a difference. In fact, some of the ingredients are not found in the drink at all, the Bang class action states.

“Contrary to these clear and identical product representations, Bang does not contain ‘super’ creatine or ‘ultra’ Coenzyme Q10, or the amounts contained therein are minimal,” the Bang energy drink class action lawsuit alleges. “Nor does it contain the spectrum of branched chain amino acids in any ‘potent’ amount sufficient to deliver any benefits to consumers.”

According to the Bang class action lawsuit, the drink is sold in a variety of flavors. The packaging contains representations that the drink contains “SUPER” Creatine or “ULTRA” Coenzyme Q10 that allegedly confuses consumers.

“Consumers believe they are purchasing a sports and energy drink that will have desired ingredients yet do not contain the ingredients as marketed and labeled by Defendant,” alleges the Bang drink class action lawsuit.

St. Fort-Nwabuku says in her Bang class action lawsuit that she purchased the drinks on several occasions. She states that she decided to purchase the energy drinks based on packaging claims that they contained certain nutritional supplements and would provide health benefits.

“Plaintiff has since learned that Bang does not contain the marketed and labeled ingredients, or that the amounts are de minimus,” states the Bang class action lawsuit. “Plaintiff took into account VPX’s misrepresentations in making her purchases and would not have purchased Bang had she known that VPX’s representations were false.”

The Bang class action seeks to represent a nationwide Class of consumers who purchased Bang.

The class action lawsuit contends that the plaintiff and proposed Class would not have purchased the energy drink or paid as much had it not been misrepresented.

“Defendant knows that consumers are willing to pay more for sports and energy products that contain ‘SUPER’ Creatine, ‘ULTRA’ CoQ10, and Branched Chain Amino Acids, as opposed to those that do not, in part because the listed ingredients are valuable and desired for these consumers, the quality is higher, and consumers believe they are paying costs associated with higher quality ‘potent,’ ‘SUPER,’ and ‘ULTRA’ ingredients,” contends the Bang class action lawsuit.

The Bang energy drink class action lawsuit is seeking damages as well as a court order requiring Vital Pharmaceuticals to stop the alleged false advertising of the beverage.

St. Fort­-Nwabuku is represented by Lance A. Harke and Tammi A. Calarco of Harke Law LLP and Ben Barnow and Erich P. Schork of Barnow and Associates PC.

The Bang Energy Drink Health Benefits Class Action Lawsuit is Shirley St. Fort­-Nwabuku v. Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 0:18­cv­62823, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.