Monster Energy Drink Class Action Revived by 9th Circuit

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.

Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived part of a false advertising class action lawsuit that alleges the labels on Monster Beverage Corp.’s energy drink products misled consumers into believing the beverage was safe.

The appellate panel found that the lower court erred when it dismissed certain labeling claims from the Monster class action lawsuit.

The judges found that the claims of plaintiffs Alec Fisher, Matthew Townsend and Ted Cross were not preempted by the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

They found that the plaintiffs’ claims that do not require Monster to include more information about the energy drinks’ caffeine content are excluded from preemption under the FDCA.

“For instance, plaintiffs allege that the Ideal Combo statement is false and misleading regarding potential health risks,” the appellate court’s opinion states. “The remedy for that claim does not require Monster to provide consumers with more information about the amount of caffeine in their products.”

The 9th Circuit judges also found that the lower court misapplied the primary jurisdiction doctrine to the plaintiffs’ claims in the Monster class action lawsuit.

According to the panel, the plaintiffs alleged consumer protection law violations on deceptive marketing and not the FDCA, and therefore the primary jurisdiction doctrine did not apply to their claims.

The Monster energy drink class action lawsuit was initially filed in 2012. It took issue with Monster’s allegedly unfair and deceptive business and trade practices. The plaintiffs accused Monster of engaging in a marketing campaign directed at children.

Fisher states that he first tried Monster energy drinks in 2007 when the company provided free beverages outside his high school. He claims that he believed the products were safe because there was nothing on the label that suggested they contained dangerous levels of caffeine.

On Friday, the 9th Circuit ruled that this argument was not sufficient to support standing in the Monster class action lawsuit, and dismissed the “off-label” claims.

Townsend claims he bought his first Monster energy drink at a vitamin store because he noticed the label stated that the beverage included 100 percent of the daily recommended values of vitamins B2, B3, B6 and B12. He claims he started drinking Monster in 2007 and continued for several years before he was admitted to the hospital with dangerously high blood pressure.

According to the Monster class action lawsuit, Cross was admitted to the hospital for high blood pressure in 2012. He claims he relied on a statement on the can that indicated it was safe to drink Monster energy drinks as long as he didn’t drink more than three per day.

Monster sought to dismiss the energy drink class action lawsuit in 2013, claiming that the plaintiffs failed to support their claims and, further, the claims were barred by the primary jurisdiction doctrine because the FDA was investigating the safety of caffeinated energy drinks.

A judge dismissed the Monster class action lawsuit in November 2013.

On Friday, the 9th Circuit ruled that the “on-label” claims of Townsend and Cross will survive Monster’s motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs are represented by Azra Mehdi and Arcelia Hurtado of The Mehdi Firm PC.

The Monster Energy Drink Class Action Lawsuit is Alec Fisher, et al. v. Monster Beverage Corp., et al., Case No. 5:12-cv-02188, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.