In case it somehow wasn’t clear, the energy drink Red Bull doesn’t actually give you wings. It’s just a marketing slogan.
Most people would probably know that to be true, but our legal system apparently didn’t think it was clear enough to the average citizen. That’s why it allowed one man to pursue a case against the company for “false advertising.” Yes, seriously. Even worse: He received a $13 million class action settlement in 2014. Not to worry — the Red Bull “gives you wings” slogan was changed to a whimsical “gives you wiiings,” for good measure. No one will ever be fooled again, thanks to our heroic legal system.
Sure, this seems preposterous, but ridiculous suits like these are brought to court all the time. Fortunately, they’re often dismissed, but they’re nevertheless consistently pursued by plaintiffs and their lawyers looking to make a buck. They’re a burden on our legal system, and it’s time to do something about it.
The ability to hold others financially responsible for causing harm is vital for people to be able to recoup costs and hold others accountable for their actions in a civil manner. But, without proper checks, frivolous lawsuits with clearly exploitative goals of only punishing another party or making money, can thrive.
It makes sense that people would pursue these kinds of suits. After all, why wouldn’t they? Sometimes they’re wildly successful. But they also have the potential to ruin small businesses and clog up courts that need to deal with real problems hurting real people. So, then, it’s time to consider legal safeguards — it’s time for tort reform.
Sometimes these lawsuits take years and years to resolve. Too, because of the lack of rules and regulations regarding torts, jurors must often make a decision based on sensationalized arguments rather than scientific facts. For example, in 2018, Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $4.7 billion to individuals claiming the company’s talc-based baby powder contributed toward their cancer diagnosis. This ruling came despite significant scientific findings from the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute that talc doesn’t actually cause cancer.
A large company may be able to absorb such a massive fee, but the legal precedent it sets is poisonous. Imagine if a smaller company were faced with the same claim. It would inevitably buckle and go bankrupt.
Courts need a better process for vetting what can be presented in trial as actual science or true expertise, and what’s simply an argument. Humans are easily swayed by emotional appeals, which is why storytelling is such an effective means of debate. But this presents a dilemma when jurors are deciding a trial’s fate.
There is a somewhat quick fix to this. To discourage people from pursuing illegitimate lawsuits, payments should be capped, but the cap shouldn’t be an arbitrary amount, like some states have implemented. It should cover all legitimate damage caused and attorney fees — but not much beyond that. Limitless potential winnings wrongfully incentivize a person to extort as much as they can in potentially sham lawsuits. For example, suits that allege some consumers genuinely believe drinking a beverage will cause them to grow wings.
Courts do usually catch and throw out phony cases, like when a man sued Starbucks for too much ice in his cup, or when a couple sued McDonald’s for $1.5 million over a burger without cheese. The list goes on and on. Nevertheless, a bogus case does sometimes move forward in the courts. When that happens, courts need to have proper laws in place to ensure that actual science is presented, and caps are in place to cover actual damage and attorney fees. Money-hungry plaintiffs and lawyers should no longer have incentives to pursue spurious claims.
Our legal system is already backlogged with legitimate cases, a crucial reason why so many criminal cases never see trials but are instead plea-bargained. Yet, of course, these cases should take precedent in our court system. Innocent people are waiting too long in line behind unchecked greed. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Molly Davis is a criminal justice policy analyst at Libertas Institute and a Consumer Freedom Fellow at Young Voices.
