The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

A popular watchdog group told the makers of 5-Hour Energy that the “No Crash” claim was unfounded and asked them to stop making it. That was five years ago.

On January 2, 2013, The New York Times published an article reporting that 24 percent of those who used 5-Hour Energy suffered a “moderately severe” crash hours after consuming the drink.

Living Essentials, the company that manufacturers 5-Hour Energy has been aware of the issues surrounding the “no crash” claim since National Advertising Division began reviewing their marketing claims in 2007. A spokeswoman from Living Essentials said they amended their no crash claim, by adding an asterix and advising that “no crash means no sugar”. This separates 5-Hour Energy from the completion because Red Bull and Monster contain sugar.

Living Essential’s 2007 study did show evidence that 5-Hour Energy resulted in less of a crash than Red Bull and Monster Energy, but it also showed that 5-Hour energy users did experience caffeine-related crashes. This inadequately supports their “no crash” claim.

The Division was not happy with the amended language and asked Living Essentials to stop using the “no crash” claim altogether. “Companies are not permitted to mischaracterize our decisions or misuse them for commercial purposes.” said a spokeswoman from National Advertising Division.

The makers of 5-Hour Energy believe the “no sugar crash” language is sufficient enough to address the watchdog’s concerns.

If the National Advertising Division does not receive an adequate response, they will turn this matter over to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Comments are closed.

Of Interest