Background
Monster Energy Company brought a Lanham Act false advertising suit against Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VPX) — the maker of Bang energy drinks — and its CEO Jack Owoc. The central claim: Bang’s marketing of “Super Creatine” as a health-enhancing ingredient was false and misleading, deceiving consumers and diverting sales from Monster.
A jury agreed and awarded Monster $271,924,174 in damages. The district court further found the case “exceptional” under the Lanham Act, triggering additional attorneys’ fee awards that brought the total past $336 million. The Ninth Circuit affirmed both the verdict and the exceptional-case finding, upholding the full judgment.
VPX and Owoc petitioned the Supreme Court for review. On June 22, 2026, the Court denied certiorari without comment, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in place.
What the Ninth Circuit Held
The Ninth Circuit’s affirmance rested on two main holdings. First, substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the “Super Creatine” advertising claims were literally false — the compound in Bang drinks did not perform as advertised, and consumers made purchasing decisions based on those claims. Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the case exceptional: VPX’s conduct was willful, the litigation conduct was aggressive, and the false claims were made at scale across a national advertising campaign.
The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari means the verdict is now final and unappealable.
Key Takeaways
- SCOTUS cert denial makes the $272M verdict final. VPX has no remaining appellate options on the Lanham Act false advertising liability.
- “Exceptional case” findings amplify Lanham Act exposure dramatically. The base verdict of $272M grew to over $336M when attorneys’ fees were added under the exceptional-case doctrine.
- Product efficacy claims carry real false advertising risk. Supplement and energy drink makers face heightened scrutiny when ingredient-efficacy claims are not scientifically substantiated. The Monster case is a landmark on how large Lanham Act damages can be for sustained false advertising campaigns.
- Willfulness + scale = exceptional case. The Ninth Circuit’s affirmance reinforces that a nationwide false advertising campaign with willful misrepresentation is a paradigm case for the exceptional-case designation.
Why It Matters
The Monster v. VPX verdict is one of the largest Lanham Act false advertising awards ever sustained on appeal. With the Supreme Court closing the door on further review, it stands as a permanent benchmark — and a warning — for companies making scientifically unsubstantiated product claims in competitive markets. The exceptional-case doctrine transforms an already-substantial verdict into a budget-breaking outcome for the losing party. Any company advertising ingredient efficacy should treat this case as required reading.