• Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    The difference is it was marketed as soda, not as a caffeinated drink, so it’s a little more nuanced than that. See Legal Eagle’s video on the topic, it’s quite a good breakdown of the situation.

    • PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocksB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

      video

      Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

      I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Here in the US, soda is expected to have caffeine (With a few exceptions like Sprite or Fanta Orange that are well known for their caffeine free drinks), so that argument makes little sense

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        The amount of caffeine in soda is negligible in comparison. Soda is not in the same class as energy drinks and coffee.

      • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        It had lemonade in its name, was next to all other soft drinks including lemonade and water , but contained more caffeine than a redbull and a monster energy drink combined. That is not what a regular consumer would expect.

    • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      They had the caffeine content listed on the name tag, and soda is expected to contain caffeine, especially one named the way this one is.