Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Monster Beverage Corporation Message Board

  • goldenseth@ymail.com goldenseth Aug 8, 2013 4:20 PM Flag

    condo...

    This is one awesome company. How many quarters in a row have they missed top and bottom line? But who cares as long as you continue to buy back shares right?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I think they generate a little revenue and profit as well, but I will take the share buy backs as well.............
      God bless all...........

    • Why down so much golden? Top line wasn't bad.

      • 2 Replies to canman276
      • the known risks its products pose to young people’s health and safety.”

        In addition, Herrera demands that Monster Beverage reimburse consumers by paying back all the money in product sales as a result of its alleged unlawful activities and also pay a $2,500 fine per each unlawful act.

        A class-action lawsuit filed in California alleges that some of Monster Energy beverages have a “a toxic and potentially lethal ingredient” called “epicallocatechin-3-gallate,” or ECGC, which has been associated with “dangerous hepatotoxic effects, including without limitation, death, acute liver failure, hepatitis and other liver injuries.”

        Further more

        The FDA does not require energy drink companies, including Monster, to list the exact amount of caffeine on ingredient labels because the products are regulated as dietary food supplements instead of food. Energy drinks are also sold as nutritional supplements, even though they may not have any nutritional value. Because of this regulation, energy drinks may exceed the FDA-mandated limit of 71 milligrams of caffeine for a 12-ounce soda.

        As well, the FDA does not allow soda to have more than 0.02 percent caffeine, but energy drinks aren’t subject to this limit.

        FDA hopefully will be cracking down for the safety of the consumer

      • Monster Energy Drink Lawsuits
        Shortly after Monster was sued by the Fournier family for the wrongful death of their daughter, the SAMHSA’s Drug Abuse Warning Network issued a report that condemned energy drinks, linking their beverages to an increase of ER visits by children and teens. Monster then challenged the report by questioning the agency’s information regarding the amount of caffeine in its drinks.

        In October 2012, the FDA said it would investigate the five deaths associated with Monster drinks. The city of San Francisco began to investigate Monster’s marketing and sales practices.

        Monster then filed a lawsuit against City Attorney Dennis Herrera in federal court on April 29, 2013, for unfairly singling out the company and overstepping his authority, and claiming that Herrera’s actions are unlawful. (People of the State of California v. Monster Beverage Corporation)

        The beverage company argues that Herrera’s investigation imposes his own personal views about the dangerousness of its products, usurps federal authority over such issues and makes demands that are out of his area of regulation. Further, his actions are preempted by federal law; they violate the company’s rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment, and they violate the Constitution’s Commerce Clause by making special demands in California, thereby burdening interstate commerce.

        The City of San Francisco then filed a lawsuit (May 6, 2013, in state court) alleging that Monster Beverage markets to children as young as six and therefore violates the California Labor Law; practices unfair competition; mislabels its products; and further violates state laws that regulate foods with additives. The complaint shows in the “Monster Army” social networking site children ages 6 and 11 holding the energy drinks. San Fran City Attorney Dennis Herrera said “Monster Energy is unique among energy drink makers for the extent to which it targets children and youth in its marketing, despite the known

 
MNST
136.90-1.10(-0.79%)Apr 17 4:00 PMEDT