Except it sounds like the charge is that the level of caffeine was variable, and it actually had more than the label claimed.
I think.
I think the drink is also mixed by staff so might indeed be variable.
There’s nothing like that in the OP’s article, only that it wasn’t specifically labeled as an energy drink.
It’s possible, if the lemonade was mixed in store, that it was improperly portioned.
Is that enough reason for Panera to be liable? Would this apply to someone who orders decaf and ends up with caffeinated coffee? That happens frequently. Wouldn’t a reasonable person with the same medical condition of this woman be extremely cautious about consuming any drink containing caffeine?
“Plant-based and clean” is, to me, highly misleading for a drink that is obviously highly adulterated lemonade.
But I’ve never touched an energy drink in my life and still associate guarana with them.
The lawsuit does mention that the caffeine content is variable and that the variability is innately dangerous - but does not actually say the caffeine content was higher than the label. I kind of think it was deliberately worded to give that impression.
Just had lunch at a Panera this past week, The Charged Lemonade was next to the coffee bar near the store entrance, not with the soda pop and other drinks in the dining area. There was also a sign that suggested the drinks are for those 18 and over.
I’m not saying that’s what happened in this case, but yes, if somebody orders a safe item, and is served an unsafe item, then the restaurant and/or staff should liable. Perhaps different levels of culpability if it is a simple mistake or malicious intent.
My big problem here is why should it be on the customer to know what “charged” is supposed to mean? I really hate when any vendor expects me to be familiar with their marketing language in order to make a decision.
If Panera has sodas, juices, coffee, and energy drinks and this charged lemonade is classified as a juice instead of an energy drink, then that is very misleading. If they just have “beverages” then I think that leaves the classification to the customer.
Yeah, those seem pretty clear to me. You can only do so much… Of course if she knew 13mg/oz of caffeine was safe, but it actually had 40mg/oz, then that’s back to being on the restaurant.
The only way that could happen is if the caffeine is added separately. No way, no how. Not only for the danger of a mistake but chains like this portion control like madmen. There’s also theft/abuse of the caffeine by employees.
If the lemonade was improperly mixed to be 3X stronger, it would be undrinkable.
N/M duplicate post
I don’t think that’s true. I sometimes make lemonade from bottled lemon juice and water, and i often make it at least 3 times stronger than typical lemonade. No, i don’t add sugar. But i don’t think 3x the typical sugar would make something undrinkable, just syrupy. And it would taste “charged”.
You should see the lemonade my kid and their friends mix! More sugar is more better. I’m sure neither of us would drink it, but they’ll use a spoon to eat lemonade sludge from the bottom of the cup, because they put in much more powder than can go into solution.
Again, not saying that is what happened, just playing with the various hypotheticals.
“Try our new Panera energy drinks!”
Seeing that would make me think, hey this is an energy drink!
Here is a link to the complaint that was filed.
It adds some details. The attorney is making a distinction that an “energy drink” is specific type of drink. Basically, an “energy” drink has caffeine + other stimulants + lots of sugar. This girl did not want or think this charged lemonade was an energy drink; she thought it was more like a Gatorade with a cup of coffee amount of caffeine.
The link has a picture of the layout in the store. Charged lemonade next to the regular drinks, but does appear to have the caffeine milligrams labeled.
So…my opinion is I don’t know enough about energy drinks and “other stimulants”. Do the other stimulants = caffeine and if so, are they part of the labeled caffeine content? If so, I think that’s enough information about what charged lemonade basically is.
New Link: Not sure if the above link is working. This is the Article with the link to the complaint in the article.
Decades ago, I worked at a chain pizza restaurant and the way we made pizza sauce was to open a certain number of No. 10 cans of tomato paste and mix that with a packet of spices. No real possibility of screwing things up. My guess is that Panera does something similar; a packet of dry ingredients added to a set amount of tap water.
I don’t think so and don’t know. Laws are local.
The joking about the lady who was burned from McDonald’s coffee had really bad burns requiring extensive treatment. So many of these cases are frivolous but not all of them.
There is the soft skull doctrine that people who cause harm take people as they find them and can be liable even if the person has extenuating circumstances. So it probably comes down to how well the caffeine content was advertised both on TV and in the store, if nutrition information was posted, and if it was likely there was a relevant arrhythmia. People with atrial fibrillation, for example, may be triggered by caffeine but this is rarely dangerous. I doubt a 5% or 20% variation in actual content is all that relevant, though maybe 500% would be…. How much did she drink?
Caffeine content in a standard 8-ounce cup of drip coffee is roughly equivalent to one and a half shots of espresso. So a standard shot of espresso has less caffeine than a standard cup of coffee.
Can i just mention that
-
McDonald’s was absolutely guilty in the case of the old lady who burned herself. They kept their coffee much hotter than industry standards, despite having been warned it was dangerous.
-
McDonald’s treated her like shit. She originally asked them to pay her medical bills. It was only after they blew her off that she sued.
-
There is no way to make a punitive damage award both reasonable compensation to the injured and also reasonable punishment to a giant corporation. Those are just incommensurate goals. The original jury award was for a day or two of coffee revenue.
-
on appeal, McDonald’s got the penalty reduced to a slap on the wrist.
-
Their coffee is still dangerously hot. I don’t buy it. But because I’m afraid I’ll hurt myself, but because it takes too damn long to cook down enough that i can drink it.
Anyway, i suppose we’ll eventually learn more about this case. If it’s a fountain drink, it’s pretty easy for the ratio of water to concentrate to be off, though. That happens all the time.
SO, so true. This (the story we’re told) is a horrid example of misinformation designed to protect the interests of a huge corporation that acted badly.
/digression over
According to the lawsuit these are the ingredients :
Panera Charged Lemonade is a beverage designed by Defendants that contains the following ingredients: water, caffeinated mango yuzu citrus flavored syrup (water, apple juice concentrate, sugar, citric acid), caffeine, coffee extract (source of caffeine), guarana extract (source of caffeine), acerola powder, ascorbic acid, natural flavor (mango, yuzu, and citrus natural flavors with other natural flavors), beta-carotene (color), and agave lemonade base (water, sugar, lemon juice, lemon juice concentrate, agave, natural flavors)
I’m not sure which are supposed to be non-caffeine stimulants - it appears that the only “stimulants” contain caffeine. Unless they’re trying to say “guarana extract (source of caffeine)” is somehow different from caffeine.
I’m also not sure what this has to do with anything
- The Gatorade logo depicts a heavy black capital letter “G,” which stands for the name of the brand, with a sharp orange and red lightning bolt, which represents the energy and power the drink gives through electrolytes, such as potassium and sodium.
- Gatorade contains no caffeine but uses a “charged” symbol to represent hydration.
- Panera Charged Lemonade also advertised using the term “charged.”
Are they trying to say that because Gatorade has no caffeine and uses a lightening bolt in their logo that people can just assume anything that uses the word “charged” doesn’t have caffeine, even if the description not only says it has caffeine but says how much caffeine it has per serving?
I feel bad for these parents - but they really don’t know what happened. Maybe the daughter knew exactly how much caffeine the drink contained and thought it would be OK. Maybe she had drunk it before and was fine. ( ETA The lawsuit says she drank one a few days before her death) Maybe she drank it on a dare - there’s no way to tell why she drank it or what she knew. And the parents weren’t even with her at the time.
It’s not a fountain drink where the water and syrup are mixed as it’s dispensed. You can see the dispenser in the photo on the complaint , where the regular lemonade and iced tea are in a dispenser right next to the one that says “Charge up” with the charged lemonade. The ratio can still be off but if you are supposed to add a container of concentrate/powder to 4 gallons of water and end up with a full dispenser , it will be very noticeable if you only added 3.5 gallons of water since the dispenser will not be full. Which doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, just that I’m sure it’s not as common as it is with the fountains.