San Francisco's City Attorney Pitching a Fit over Monster Energy Drinks


Hmm … we should consider marketing to children, too.

You would imagine that a city the size of San Francisco would have a lot of serious, pressing legal issues that would keep the city attorney's office on its toes. The office must have quite a big staff, though, if this is how City Attorney Dennis Herrera is spending his days. From the Los Angeles Times:

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera is lashing back at Monster Beverage Corp. with his own lawsuit a week after being sued by the Corona energy drink maker.

The root of the legal barbs: Herrera's attempts to curb caffeine content in Monster products and his efforts to limit the company's marketing overtures to children.

On Monday, Herrera's office filed a complaint in San Francisco Superior Court and also accused Monster in a statement of pitching highly caffeinated drinks to minors as young as 6 years old.

This response follows a lawsuit filed by Monster accusing Herrera of singling out their company and, according to the Times, being more "motivated by publicity rather than science." Well, how else is he going to run for elected office in San Francisco?

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: Maxis Announces The Sims 4

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You would imagine that a city the size of San Francisco would have a lot of serious, pressing legal issues that would keep the city attorney’s office on its toes.

    The answer to all this is simple: Herrera has higher ambitions. I’m guessing he’s looking at a national AG gig.

    1. One would hope that an ambitious leftard in his position would try something like fighting for the rights of the people of San Francisco against federal usurpation, but NOOOOOO.. He’s got to be a little Bloomberg wannabe bitch.


  2. Yes, because as long as science says its bad for you, it can be banned. All hail Lord Science.

    1. And of course once it’s banned researchers will no longer have access to it, so the science will be settled!

    2. “Science” doesn’t even say caffeine is bad for you. All hail Lord Conventional Health Wisdom!

      1. We need to move away from Conventional health to alternative forms of health, so we can be health independednt by 2050.

        1. Nobody NEEDS a drink with more than 11 calories per ounce.

          Sensible, common sense, commonly sensible, sensibly common drink laws.

          1. Also, if you don’t think that government should prevent children from buying this product, you’re a statist.

            1. And yet we market politics at children every day.

              I’m thinking the idea of limiting marketing to children may not be a bad idea.

              1. Sugarfree’d the link

                1. I read that as “Sugarfree’d the drink”

      2. Science says that caffeine is quite good for you.

        1. what does Science know?

        2. I think that is highly dependent on the dosage.

          I have poisoned arrows with caffeine and with nicotine. One good cut and the deer wont make ten steps.

          I also smoke a pack per day and drink about 37 cups of coffee.

          1. Well, duh. Anything is poisonous at a high enough dose.

            But…nicotine-poisoned arrows? Fucking badass.

            1. I remember watching a movie in Jr High social studies class that depicted the true story of a pharmacist who killed his wife by poisoning her with a tincture of nicotine.

          2. Watched an episode of Mythbusters where Adam put one teaspoon of caffeine in a solution, and said that was enough to kill you. I don’t doubt it in the least.

        3. Yeah but my short game really suffers.

    3. Hi NileCroc, What you say is CLOSE to the truth, but, really, well, is just a bunch of croc! Not “all hail science”, but FAR better, “all hail Government Almighty”, as we Devout Scienfoologists say. To learn more about Scienfoology, see .

    4. All hail Lord Government Science.

      Fixed it.

  3. Save us, City Attorney! Save us!

  4. “being more “motivated by publicity rather than science.””
    Herrera prolly couldn’t pass that trivia test posted earlier; science is what he failed on his way to his poly sci degree.

  5. I’m thinking – I’m hoping – that caffeine will be the hill that the nannies will die on. They’ll go after it just like they went after tobacco and other drugs and they’ll end up crucified, because it’s not really bad for you and too many people depend on it.

    1. The nannies will never die and they don’t want to kill it anyway. They’ll tax it and I’ll pay the fucking tax because I’m a hopeless addict.

    2. So far, the only hill that nannies are dying on is gun control.

      They hold almost every other hill.

      1. I think caffeine will be another one they won’t be able to hold. So far they’ve only managed to do anything because they went after products no one gave a damn about. They start going after popular energy drinks and coffee or tea, though, and they’ll be lucky if they don’t get lynched. They’ll also completely tarnish their brand with young people, which is a good way to get your agenda on the fast track to obscurity.

        1. They may go after “excessive” caffeine or “marketing to children” at the margins, but nannies won’t go after caffeine generally because too many of their constituents are Starbucks goldcarders.

          But they’re already going after sugar, which will have the same effect of killing soda, energy drinks, and other low-class beverages.

          Herrera probably just didn’t get the memo

    3. “…caffeine will be the hill that the nannies will die on.”

      You may be right Generic. Like many other places in the country, coffee is a religion here. Nearly every business you go into where you have to spend more than a few minutes talking to someone has free Community Coffee.

  6. “The answer to all this is simple: Herrera has higher ambitions. I’m guessing he’s looking at a national AG gig.”

    Not likely to get it.
    CA dems are doormats; national dems don’t bother tossing anything their way outside of table scraps.
    Why bother? CA will vote dem even when Obozo pisses on their legs and tells them it’s a warm rain. Pass out the goodies where it’ll get you something.

  7. Since this has turned into a Links thread:…..24762.html

    Title: Austerity Has Cost The U.S. Economy 2.2 Million Jobs: Study

    The entire study:In the 46 months since the Great Recession ended, state, local and federal governments have cut about 500,000 jobs. In contrast, in every other U.S. recession since 1970, the government hired approximately 1.7 million people, on average. That means the U.S. is an estimated 2.2 million jobs in the hole.

    See what they did there? Unfalsifiable assertion based on an unfalsifiable premise.

    1. It all makes sense now. If the government would only hire all 30+ million unemployed we could have 0 unemployment. WHY AREN”T THEY ACTING? REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTIONISTS!!

      1. Why stop at 30M? Couldn’t the gubmint just hire everyone?

    2. I like how they view unemployed as simple objects, and the shitty jobs they would most likely get as a good thing.

    3. The amount of stupid in the comments is unbearable, I think I lost a few IQ points just reading that garbage. Those people actually consider the record high deficits the U.S. gov has been running is austerity.

      1. Austerity = government spending less than what I want them to spend. And because I can always want government to spend more and more, government is engaging in austerity whenever I say it is.

        /prog logic

        1. I think this is slightly more accurate:

          Austerity is: the government not spending more than it did.

          1. They’ve defined ‘austerity’ out of existence. You don’t even have to cut spending for it to be austerity. If spending increases but by less than previously budgeted, it is austerity.

            1. Truly. I wonder if we’ll start seeing more of these articles with the word austerity applied to the US, which has engaged in nothing of the sort. “Sequester” just didn’t work for them politically. It wasn’t scary sounding enough, left most people going “meh.” Look for “austerity” linked to “unfortunate”, “tragic”, and “heartbreaking” stories of loss and hardship in the NYT and WaPo in months to come, I’m guessing.

          2. 0x90| 5.6.13 @ 10:15PM |#
            “I think this is slightly more accurate:
            Austerity is: the government not spending more than it did.”

            You’re more hopeful than I am. I figure it’s
            “Austerity: The government spending ‘way more than it did, but not as much as the lefties hoped!”

      2. I’ve tried to post 6 comments on this story. 1 has been allowed into the echo chamber.

        1. Just walk away dude. Not worth it.

          The problem with arguing with folks like that is they start off the debate using phony correlations and straw men to try and box you in to a corner to defend something you never said, just because of the way they frame the argument.

          You can’t win, despite the fact that they are utterly and completely wrong.

    4. I was gonna post that as yet another “lying with statics” example. There is an atlantic article that is almost exactly the same, and using the GDP percentage trick on top of it.

  8. Seattle PD loosening usage of mj rules. It used to be not in the last 3 yrs and no more than 25 times total. Now, it’s not in the last year and as I read the article (kind of vague) no limit on total times used.

    Current officers are prohibited from using, even though legal at state level.…..14251.html

    The Onion got hacked. How the hell can you hack the fucking onion for not being serious about the news.

    1. Did it copy something from Huffington Post?

      1. It was hacked by the Syrian Electronic Army.

    2. Dude, they posted their “password” on the Onion Facebook account this morning. It’s an Onion meta story.

      1. Never mind, I was confused by the Onion self flagellation after the fact. I guess it really did happen.

  10. This may have been brought up in some earlier thread, I dunno. It’s worth posting again.

    I Do Not Care About Income or Wealth Inequality

    1. You could tease the link:
      “Richard Ammerman, a registered nurse in Rhode Island, challenges me by e-mail to answer “yes or no” to the question: Do I care about income inequality?
      I do not in the least care about income (or wealth) inequality.”

      And I’ll add I don’t give a shit, either. Not sure it’s for the same reasons, but it doesn’t matter.
      You want “equality”? Fuck you.

      1. I like the phrase, “equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome”.

        I especially like to rub the nose of liberals in the fact that there “equality of outcome” paradises are the biggest most foul shitholes in the world, not to mention the whole dead people thingy.

        1. but don’t you see that’s because the wrong TOP.MEN. were in charge every other time.

  11. Don’t look now, but I think Don Draper found happiness.

  12. Sounds like someone has WAY too much spare time on their hands!

  13. Who really expects any company doing business nationally to have to give the attorney’s office of San Fransisco a minute of their time? What kind of hick logic is that? You should be embarrassed Fransians. It is no different than when Sheriff Lobo sets up speed traps along an interstate in South Carolina that ignores the federal laws regarding those properties.

    1. I renamed your city because you are unworthy of being associated with the Cisco Kid so long as you keep electing these maggots instead flaying their skin from their bones like a Bolton born.

  14. Amanda Berry and other women found alive.…..493054.php

    1. Holy shit. Dude was using them for breeding stock.

    2. In Cleveland. Warty’s basement.

      1. Not too terribly far from my house, actually.

        1. dun-dun-dun!

      2. Jeez, I’ve been waiting for someone to make a Warty joke about it since I heard about it. Literally the first thought I had when I found out it was in Cleveland was “Warty!!!!”

  15. Here is the true meaning of government gone insane:

    EU goes insane, tries to one up AU, reach full dystopia first

    1. FUCK!

      It pains me so much to be on the same side as Jos? Bov? on an issue.

      1. Truly retarded laws make strange bedfellows.

    2. My IQ just dropped a few more points.

    3. “First Infowars, now Drudge linking to the cranks at “Natural News”” -Mike Moynihan on the Twitah

      1. all respectable news organ…
        nope, can’t do it

      2. Is this story inaccurate?

        1. Here’s another source saying the same thing.

          The law has apparently been changed so that gardeners are allowed to swap seeds among themselves without breaking the law, seedbanks are exempt, and organizations under 10 workers are exempt.

          Still a terrible law, but not nearly as odious as it was initially, assuming the story I’m seeing is correct.

          1. I hate the hyperbole. Especially because some people will here the modifications and be mollified. It would be better to be like “there are these exemptions and they do not make it acceptable.”

        2. I dunno, but Moynihan is usually pretty sharp. Heavily exagerated, perhaps?

    4. I’m saving this to use whenever progrards say that we should be more like Europe.

  16. just as Frank said I didnt know that some people able to get paid $7814 in four weeks on the computer. did you look at this webpage…….. http://www.daz7.?om


      1. Relax, he’s that guy who went to Hollywood.

        1. I thought that was Barton?

      2. I don’t know, but he’s this guys biaatchh.

        Most successful snake oil salesman in history, cashes in

        Gore has made about $1,000,000 a year for the last 10 years to sit on a board that was famously paid to agree with Steve Jobs. And then he got $45 million in stock options as a bonus for a total of about $55 million. Considering the board meets about 5 times years, that’s just over $1,000,000 per day or $125,000 per hour.”

        1. and that man wanted to be President?

          1. My favorite part about Gore losing that election is that he wouldn’t have lost his home state, which was winnable, had he not blown off the Tenn DNC chairman in the last few months of the campaign.

            Had he won TN, Florida would’ve been irrelevant.


            1. The sad thing is if that shitheel had won in 2000 he would have most likely been better for the US and the world.

              1. I disagree not because I think he necessarily would’ve been worse than Bush but simply because I have no way of knowing.

                I could come up with plenty of reasons WHY Gore would’ve been worse, but that doesn’t mean it would’ve happened.

                1. I wonder how the political landscape would have been affected by the recession and financial crisis had Gore been elected (and re-elected). Because it still would have happened. In real life, people blamed Bush, the Republicans, and the free-market. I really wonder how the backlash would against Gore would have compared. Would the Republicans and the idea of free-markets have benefited? Or would the country have made an even harder left turn?

              2. If Gore had won, would we need Obama?

                1. I think it’s somewhat of a fruitless exercise because as Cali mentions, the internet bubble crash and 9/11 were going to happen no matter who was in charge, and we have no idea what Gore would’ve done.

                  I don’t blame Obama for everything that has gone wrong in Washington, despite his unheralded attempts to change my mind.

                  1. Housing bubble would have happened too. It was already inflating was early as 1997, and there’s no way Gore would have realized what was happening and done anything to prevent it.

                    Kind of goes to show how irrelevant the person in the White House actually is, since the three biggest events of the last 15 years would have happened regardless of who won in 2000.

                  2. What about the Iraq and Afghan wars? Inevitable?

                    1. We would have unquestionably invaded Afghanistan. Gore probably wouldn’t have gone into Iraq, but I don’t know what he would have done regarding the ‘War on Terror.’

                    2. There would have been no tax cut, that’s for sure. Gore would have signed the BiPartiSAN Campaign Finance Reform Bill.

                      It’s possible that Medicare Part D wouldn’t have passed, since a lot of it was done by R’s carrying Bush Admin. water but they likely would have caved in during a Gore Admin as well.

                      No Child Left Behind would have passed but it would have been called something else and the left would be complaining about how the right isn’t funding it enough.

                      Something different would have happened with Iraq, but it’s tough to know what. I imagine that the WoT would have occurred in a similar manner.

                      Oh, one big difference is SC nominations.

                      Alito and Roberts never make it to the court. I suspect that Heller, McDonald and Citizens United are decided differently or never occur.

                    3. I don’t think it’s an automatic Gore doesn’t go in to Iraq either.

                      Again, it’s somewhat pointless to say.

                    4. I think he does something but that might just have turned out to be as little as a series of cruise missile attacks on suspected WMD sites.

                    5. We just had a 15 post thread about a possible alternate history involving Al Gore as president from 2000-2008.

                      For a site called Reason…

                    6. DRINK

                    7. I disagree. While the Centrist Democrats of the Gore tradition are just as much empire builders as the neo-cons, you have to remember that from the late 90’s up until 9/11, they were the most vocal China hawks in Washington.

                      If Gore decided to add a completely useless war on top of Afghanistan, he might have chosen a country in China’s sphere, Pakistan being the prime candidate. Finding a casus belli would have been a hell of a lot easier too.

                    8. Pakistan being the prime candidate. Finding a casus belli would have been a hell of a lot easier too.

                      I could definitely see a Gore Admin. saying they were pursuing Bin Laden and Pakistan trying to assert themselves only to be rebuffed.

                    9. No way we invade a country with nuclear capabilities.

                    10. I don’t think there would have been an invasion…probably just a bombing campaign.

                    11. I don’t know.

                      There was the Iraq Liberation Act, and the fact that after Afghanistan many of the people we were looking for left Afghanistan and went to Iraq.

                      Pakistan has nukes. That wouldn’t have happened.

                    12. You mean like how we totally respected the sovereignty of Pakistan on May 1, 2011…Pakistan may have nukes but we’ve been known to run roughshod over them

                    13. I agree with that, but there’s no denying the different dynamics between Pakistan and circa 2003 Iraq. If Pakistan had come out and said “we have Bin Laden and fuck you” who knows what would’ve happened in 2003.

                      That thought just made me ill.

                    14. I’ve heard that the U.S., because of our quick strike abilities, basically has the ability to take out anyone’s nuclear arsenal before they’re able to launch.

                      I don’t know how accurate that is though.

                    15. Diversity is our strength!


                    16. Al Gore, circa 1999:

                      If Milosevic does not call off his attack and stop the slaughter of innocent men, women and children, we are determined to act to diminish the military power that he has turned ruthlessly toward the Kosovo people and help the Kosovar Albanians win the safety, security and self-government they deserve.

                      Al Gore was as much a proponent of the “humanitarian war” as anyone in the Clinton administration. Afghanistan was inevitable following 9/11, but if not Iraq, it is likely that some other nation would have got the business, maybe Pakistan.

        2. BHO laughs at Gore’s pathetically insignificant graft.

  17. Oops if someone brought this up before (a bit late here), but this is about gentrification, and gentrification is about tax revenues. Politician want tax revenues. Taxes are slanted such that only high middle class people pay the bulk of them. People who consume energy drinks, cigarettes, or 32oz colas are generally lower-middle to middle class. They are not poor, if they were poor they couldn’t afford this stuff. But they are not revenue generators.

    Viable cities, like San Francisco and New York, want to replace the working class stiffs with gentry. They won’t directly throw out the poor, that would be unprogressive. Instead they want to throw out (annoy them enough to move) the working class stiffs to make room for the gentry.

    1. Indeed. It’s the Paris-ification of America’s urban centers. The beautiful people get to live in the city centers, with all their culture and history, and the servile class is exiled to les banlieues, safely outside city limits.

      1. Excellent point. After all you don’t want those unwashed masses stinking things up…

    2. It’s already happened in Manhattan.

    3. And Santa Monica, CA which I’m more familiar with than Manhattan. The purpose of the no-smoking ordinances there (which now apply to apartments now) is not to stop people from smoking. It is to stop people who smoke from living there.

  18. Great takedown of Obama’s commencement speech.

  19. Sounds like this dude has WAY too much spare time on his handds!

  20. “This response follows a lawsuit filed by Monster accusing Herrera of singling out their company and, according to the Times, being more “motivated by publicity rather than science.” Well, how else is he going to run for elected office in San Francisco?”

    Go Monster!!! I am so sick of smug, priggish, self-rightous officials and legislator’s punishing personal choices.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.