A Monster Energy lawsuit can mean very different things depending on who is suing whom. Monster Beverage Corporation has been sued for wrongful death, product injuries, false advertising, and marketing to minors, and it has also filed its own suits, winning a $311 million false advertising judgment against Bang Energy and pursuing hundreds of trademark actions. The wrongful death cases largely settled or ended in defense verdicts, the regulatory actions produced labeling changes but no major penalties, and Monster’s offensive litigation has reshaped its competitive position.
Wrongful Death and Injury Cases
The lawsuits that first drew national attention to Monster involved young consumers who died after drinking its products. In October 2012, the family of Anais Fournier, a 14-year-old from Maryland, sued in Riverside Superior Court in California. The complaint alleged Fournier died on December 16, 2011, from cardiac arrhythmia after drinking two 24-ounce cans of Monster Energy containing a combined 480 milligrams of caffeine. A Maryland coroner concluded the cause of death was “cardiac arrhythmia due to caffeine toxicity,” while noting Fournier had a pre-existing heart condition not considered severe enough to restrict her activities.1Sudden Cardiac Arrest Foundation. Death of Teenager Prompts Second California Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Monster2CNBC. Wrongful Death Suit Against Monster Beverage Heads to Mediation
Monster disputed the claim. Its medical experts attributed the death to natural causes, specifically cardiac fibrosis, and pointed to pre-existing conditions including a heart murmur, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, mitral valve prolapse, and a heart roughly 60 percent larger than normal for her age. The experts also noted no blood test for caffeine had been performed.3Monster Beverage Corporation. Monster Beverage Corp Details Medical Evidence Obtained in Fournier Case A California judge sent the case to mediation in 2013.2CNBC. Wrongful Death Suit Against Monster Beverage Heads to Mediation
Two other wrongful death cases followed. Paula Morris sued in Alameda County over the July 1, 2012 death of her 19-year-old son Alex, who reportedly consumed two 16-ounce cans of Monster daily for three years. The complaint alleged strict product liability, failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties, and wrongful death.4MedLeague. Energy Drink Wrongful Death Suit5BevNET. Report: Monster Settles Lawsuit for Substantial Dollars
The Bledsoe Verdict
One product liability case did reach a jury. Cody Dean Bledsoe, 18 at the time, alleged he suffered cardiac arrest in 2013 that resulted in significant brain damage, and blamed Monster Energy drinks. His claims included defective design, negligence, failure to warn, and fraudulent concealment. After a five-week trial in Riverside County Superior Court, the jury deliberated about 15 minutes before returning a unanimous defense verdict on December 7, 2018, finding Monster’s products did not cause the injuries.6Food Dive. Monster Energy Drink Didn’t Cause Heart Attack, Jury Finds It was the first case of its kind against Monster to reach a verdict. Monster’s lead attorney noted that its 16-ounce cans contain 160 milligrams of caffeine, less than a comparable Starbucks coffee at 310 milligrams. Bledsoe’s attorney announced plans to appeal, arguing the trial judge improperly excluded studies from evidence.
Morgan & Morgan’s Dismissed Suits
In February 2016, the personal injury firm Morgan & Morgan filed a wave of cases against Monster in Riverside County Superior Court, including one for a 14-year-old who suffered a stroke and one for a 43-year-old man who suffered a stroke after reportedly drinking six cans a day.7Central Florida Public Media. 14-Year-Old Has Stroke; Orlando Law Firm Blames Monster Energy Drink Monster later reported that all of the Morgan & Morgan suits, which the company described as “more than a dozen,” were voluntarily dismissed by the firm.8Monster Beverage Corporation. All Lawsuits Dismissed Against Monster Energy Company Filed by Morgan & Morgan
FDA Investigation and Regulatory Pressure
In November 2012, the FDA announced an investigation into energy drinks, including Monster, following voluntary reports from 2004 through late 2012 describing five deaths and one non-fatal heart attack potentially linked to the products. Reported adverse events also included nausea, anxiety, seizures, renal failure, and arrhythmias. The agency stressed that the reports did not prove the drinks caused the injuries.9CBS News. FDA Investigating Reports of Deaths Linked to Monster Energy Drink
At the time, Monster marketed its drinks as dietary supplements rather than beverages, placing them outside the FDA’s 0.02 percent caffeine limit for sodas. A 24-ounce can then contained 240 milligrams of caffeine.9CBS News. FDA Investigating Reports of Deaths Linked to Monster Energy Drink Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, supplements do not require FDA pre-approval, and the FDA bears the burden of proving a product unsafe before removing it.10National Library of Medicine. Energy Drinks: An Assessment of Their Market Size, Consumer Demographics, Ingredient Profile, Functionality, and Regulations In March 2013, amid mounting litigation and public pressure, Monster reclassified its products as beverages and added caffeine content to its labels.
Marketing to Minors: San Francisco and New York
On May 6, 2013, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera sued Monster in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law through marketing highly caffeinated drinks to children as young as six. The complaint pointed to Monster’s “Monster Army” website and its “Player of the Game” promotions featuring high school athletes.11The New York Times. Suit Claims Monster Beverage Markets to Children A week earlier, Monster had filed its own preemptive federal suit seeking to block the investigation on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. A California federal court dismissed Monster’s complaint in December 2013.12Nutraceuticals World. San Francisco Attorney Sues Monster Energy for Targeting Kids By early 2015, the state case was in discovery with a bench trial set for February 2016.13U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Monster Beverage Corporation SEC Filing – Legal Proceedings
The New York Attorney General issued subpoenas to Monster in 2012 and again in 2014, seeking marketing documents as part of a probe into potentially deceptive promotion of energy drinks to children and young adults, and the promotion of mixing energy drinks with alcohol. Monster contested the subpoenas, arguing the FDA held primary jurisdiction. As of mid-2016, the matter remained at a preliminary stage with no enforcement action publicly reported.14SupplySide. Monster Energy Still Awaiting Judge’s Ruling on Subpoena in NY AG Probe
False Advertising and Shareholder Class Actions
In December 2012, Fisher v. Monster Beverage Corp. was filed in federal court, alleging Monster fraudulently labeled its drinks as supplements to avoid FDA regulation, failed to warn about caffeine levels, and falsely marketed products as able to “hydrate like a sports drink.” A federal judge dismissed the complaint in November 2013, finding the hydration claims to be “non-actionable puffery” and that plaintiffs had not sufficiently pleaded reliance. The Ninth Circuit revived certain claims in July 2016, holding they were not preempted by federal law, though claims tied to caffeine content were not revived.15Truth in Advertising. Monster Energy Class Action
On the securities side, Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., originally filed in 2008 in federal court in Los Angeles, settled on April 16, 2014. The settlement was fully funded by Monster’s insurer and included no admission of liability.16Monster Beverage Corporation. Monster Beverage Corporation Issues Statement in Connection With Insurer-Funded Settlement A separate shareholder suit ended in a $16.25 million settlement over allegations that Monster overstated the benefits of a distribution arrangement with Anheuser-Busch.17Morgan & Morgan. Dangerous Caffeine Levels: Monster Energy Facing Lawsuits
Monster’s $311 Million Win Against Bang Energy
The largest single result in any Monster Energy lawsuit came when Monster was the plaintiff. In 2018 the company sued Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. (VPX Sports), the maker of Bang Energy, alleging Bang falsely advertised its “Super Creatine” ingredient and claimed the drink could help cure neurological disorders. In September 2022, a California federal jury awarded Monster nearly $293 million after finding Bang’s products did not actually contain creatine and that the marketing had misled consumers. The jury also imposed punitive damages on state law claims.18Hueston Hennigan LLP. Monster Wins $293M Verdict Against VPX in False Ad Trial With attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs, the total judgment exceeded $311 million.19Reuters. US Court Affirms Monster Energy’s $311 Mln Court Win Against Former Rival Bang
Monster had already won a $175 million trademark arbitration award against VPX in April 2022, plus $9.3 million in attorney fees.18Hueston Hennigan LLP. Monster Wins $293M Verdict Against VPX in False Ad Trial The combined financial pressure contributed to VPX filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in October 2022. Monster then bought Bang Energy’s assets out of bankruptcy for $362 million, a deal approved by Bankruptcy Judge Peter Russin on July 12, 2023, including Bang’s beverage brands and a Phoenix production facility.20Press-Enterprise. Monster Wins Approval on $362 Million Acquisition of Bang Energy On April 15, 2025, the Ninth Circuit upheld the $311 million judgment, rejecting Bang founder Jack Owoc’s appeal.19Reuters. US Court Affirms Monster Energy’s $311 Mln Court Win Against Former Rival Bang
Trademark Enforcement Suits
Monster is one of the most active trademark enforcers in the country. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has called the company a “prolific litigant,” and Monster has spent over $8.5 billion promoting its trademarks and trade dress, including $4.6 billion tied to its claw logo.21Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox. MarkIt to Market
In September 2009, Hansen Beverage Company (Monster’s predecessor) sent a cease-and-desist letter to Rock Art Brewery, a small operation in Morrisville, Vermont, demanding the brewery drop the name “The Vermonster” from its barley wine and pay Hansen’s legal fees.22NBC News. Vt. Brewery’s ‘Vermonster’ Draws Monster’s Ire After a viral video, boycotts across four states, and public criticism from Senator Bernie Sanders, the parties settled on October 20, 2009. Rock Art kept the Vermonster name and agreed not to sell energy drinks.23ABC13. Rock Art Brewery, Monster Drink Maker Settle ‘Vermonster’ Dispute
In April 2020, Monster filed a 186-page opposition at the USPTO against Ubisoft’s planned game title Gods & Monsters, citing its presence in gaming and esports sponsorships.24Kotaku. Gods & Monsters Isn’t the First Time Monster Energy Has Fought Over Its Name in Video Games25GamesIndustry.biz. Ubisoft Renamed Immortals Fenyx Rising After Trademark Dispute26PC Gamer. Monster Energy Drinks Try to Bully Indie Dev Out of Using the Word Monster27Spokesman-Review. Game On: Monster Energy Threatens Indie Game Developer Over Use of Word ‘Monster’
Not every Monster trademark action succeeds. The company lost a two-year opposition against the Cleveland Monsters minor league hockey team in 2020 and failed to block the Toronto Raptors’ claw logo. In June 2024, the TTAB summarily dismissed Monster’s challenge to the “Predator” mark held by Golden Global Innovations.21Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox. MarkIt to Market In October 2023, Monster withdrew its opposition to a small business owner’s “T***y Monster” apparel mark after a consumer survey showed no actual confusion, and the TTAB dismissed the case with prejudice.28NERA Economic Consulting. Successfully Defending Small Business Before TTAB
The 2024 Dead Mouse Suit
In September 2024, McKenzie Cain sued in Michigan state court alleging she found a dead mouse in a can of white Monster Energy bought from a bagel shop in Grand Rapids in April 2024. The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan and seeks at least $25,000 in damages.29CBS News Detroit. Michigan Woman Files Lawsuit Against Monster Energy Over Dead Mouse in Can Monster called the claim “a copycat claim based on a hoax found on the internet” and said its manufacturing processes make it “impossible for a mouse to be sealed inside a Monster Energy drink.”30FOX 2 Detroit. West Michigan Woman Finds Dead Mouse in Monster Energy Drink, Attorney Says As of mid-2025, the case remained active and headed toward trial if the parties do not settle.