The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has accused PepsiCo India of deliberately misleading consumers by marketing its high-caffeine beverages, Sting Energy and Adrenaline Rush, as ‘energy drinks’.
In an affidavit filed before the Delhi High Court on October 28, the food regulator argued that India does not have prescribed standards for products categorised as energy drinks and that the branding could mislead consumers about their composition and effects. FSSAI has opposed PepsiCo’s request for a 12-month extension to use its existing packaging, citing public health concerns, particularly the potential impact of high-caffeine and high-sugar products on children.
PepsiCo has challenged the regulator’s directions, while the court’s interim arrangement allows the company to sell existing stock carrying the disputed label but restricts the manufacture of fresh batches using the same descriptor.
Why Is FSSAI Questioning?
In its 57-page affidavit, FSSAI maintained that PepsiCo was aware that its products were required to comply with the standards applicable to caffeinated beverages, yet continued marketing them as energy drinks.
The regulator argued that the term could amount to misbranding and misleading claims under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It also questioned promotional expressions such as ‘vitalises body and mind’ and ‘helps in general weakness’, arguing that such claims could create an incorrect impression among consumers. FSSAI rejected PepsiCo‘s request for an open-ended 12-month period to exhaust its existing packaging material, maintaining that public health considerations should take precedence over commercial timelines and potential financial losses. The regulator also stressed the importance of protecting children from the impulse consumption of products containing high levels of caffeine and sugar.
How Did The Dispute Begin?
The controversy began on June 30, 2026, when FSSAI directed PepsiCo to discontinue the use of the ‘Energy Drink’ descriptor on its products and asked manufacturers to withdraw related labels, marketing material and advertisements within 90 days.
PepsiCo challenged the directive before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the regulator had acted without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity to be heard. On October 6, Justice Amit Mahajan stayed the regulator’s directions temporarily and allowed PepsiCo to sell stock manufactured before the order, subject to maintaining records. However, the court clarified that the interim relief did not permit the manufacture of new products carrying the disputed descriptor.
PepsiCo subsequently sought further relief. The wider dispute also involves other beverage manufacturers, including Monster Beverage, Red Bull, Hell Energy and Reliance Consumer. The matter was listed before the Delhi High Court for November 5.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Food labels are more than marketing tools; they help consumers make informed decisions about what they purchase and consume.
When a product’s description creates expectations about its benefits or effects, companies must ensure that those claims are clear, accurate and supported by applicable standards. At the same time, regulatory action must follow transparent procedures and give businesses a fair opportunity to respond. Protecting public health, especially that of children and young consumers, should remain a shared priority for regulators and manufacturers. Consumers, too, deserve accessible information about ingredients, caffeine content and potential health implications rather than relying solely on promotional claims. Should beverage companies face stricter scrutiny over how they market high-caffeine products, and how can India make food labels more transparent for everyday consumers?
Also Read: SC Says Protest Sites Can’t Be Occupied Indefinitely As Traders Seek Halt To Demonstrations
