Monster sues San Francisco lawyer over probe
Monster Beverage Corp. is hitting back at San Francisco after the city launched an investigation into the safety of its energy drinks.
May 01, 2013 at 07:47 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Monster Beverage Corp. is hitting back at San Francisco after the city launched an investigation into the safety of its energy drinks.
The company, which makes popular energy drinks, filed suit earlier this week claiming San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera violated its rights. According to Monster, it was unconstitutional for Herrara to demand the company reformulate its product and change its marketing and labeling materials. In its suit, the company said Herrera overstepped his bounds and that only the Food and Drug Administration can regulate the safety of its drinks.
“Monster Energy is claiming an unfettered right to continue marketing its products to children and youth, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that its products pose serious risks to young people's health and safety,” Herrera said in a statement Tuesday.
Energy drinks have come under fire in the past year. In July 2012, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg subpoenaed Monster and several other energy drink makers claiming the companies may be misleading consumers about the amount of caffeine in their products. And in October, the parents of a teenager who died after consuming a Monster energy drink sued the company for failing to disclose what's in its drinks.
Read more InsideCounsel stories about energy drink companies in the news:
The company, which makes popular energy drinks, filed suit earlier this week claiming San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera violated its rights. According to Monster, it was unconstitutional for Herrara to demand the company reformulate its product and change its marketing and labeling materials. In its suit, the company said Herrera overstepped his bounds and that only the Food and Drug Administration can regulate the safety of its drinks.
“Monster Energy is claiming an unfettered right to continue marketing its products to children and youth, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that its products pose serious risks to young people's health and safety,” Herrera said in a statement Tuesday.
Energy drinks have come under fire in the past year. In July 2012,
Read more InsideCounsel stories about energy drink companies in the news:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 2Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 3For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 4As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 5General Warrants and ESI
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250