A lawsuit has been filled against VNGR beverage which makes poppy prebiotic soda. The Poppi prebiotic soda lawsuit accuses VNGR of deceptive marketing practices especially on their advertised gut health benefits of their products.
The lawsuit which was filled by Kristin Cobbs who is a resident of San Francisco makes varied allegations about the VNGR beverage. She claims that the beverage drink is very misleading in their marketing which emphasizes on the gut benefits of the beverage.
According to Kristin, the company advertises the VNGR beverage as a soda which offers gut health benefits. However, after research, it has been established that the drink contains very minimal prebiotic fibre which are as low as 2 grams per can. According to her, this amount of prebiotic fibre is very low to offer the advertised benefits in just one can drink.
Her other claim in her Poppi prebiotic soda lawsuit is that high sugar content in the drinks. According to Kristina, even if the VNGR beverages had all the benefits advertised, the high sugar content in the drink would reverse all the potential gut health benefits.
The Poppi Prebiotic Soda Lawsuit Claims
In her Poppi Prebiotic Soda Lawsuit, Kristina accuses VNGR beverages of false advertising, unjust enriching which occurs through profits gained through deceptive marketing and potential violation the established California state consumer protection laws.
On their part, Poppi maintains that the Poppi Prebiotic Soda Lawsuit is baseless and maintains that all the advertised benefits in their products are genuine. They therefore commit to put up an equal and vigorous defence against the lawsuit targeting their products.
The legal Poppi Prebiotic Soda Lawsuit is still in its initial stages meaning a lot of the details in the lawsuit are yet to be addressed. Given the protracted nature of such lawsuits there is a good chance this case might drag for longer before a judgement is eventually rendered.
The Poppi Prebiotic Soda Lawsuit in a Nutshell
The Poppi Prebiotic Soda Lawsuit might have come as a surprise to the manufacturers of VNG beverages but to other people it is not. There have been such lawsuits in the past all targeting the dishonesty in company advertisements and product information. For Kristina, the centre of her lawsuit is the issue of the drink failing to live up its advertised promise. According to the lawsuit the company was misleading in their advertisement which is why the plaintiff in this case is demanding compensation for users of the drink.
According to Kristina, the only way anyone can enjoy the full benefits advertised in the drink is by taking up to five or more VNGR drinks. This is particularly beneficial to the company which sales volumes of such drinks but detrimental to the product customer who has to spend a lot of money on VNGR drinks just to enjoy the advertised benefits.
On top of that, VNGR drinks contain high sugar levels which as said above, reverse all the gains found in the drink. Furthermore, consistent intake of drinks with sugar content levels can be detrimental to a person’s health translating to health issues in the end.
