PepsiCo Cannot Label New Bottles of Sting as ‘Energy Drink’

PepsiCo India cannot currently manufacture new bottles and cans of Sting carrying the description “energy drink” after the Delhi High Court declined to grant the company immediate relief in its ongoing dispute with India’s food safety regulator. On October 12, 2026, a division bench sent the matter back to a single judge and asked for clarification within a week on the reasons for restricting further production with the disputed label.

The case concerns the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) position that the term “energy drink” cannot be used as a product name or label for certain caffeinated beverages. While PepsiCo has been allowed to sell qualifying existing stocks carrying the description, the restriction on manufacturing new labeled stock remains in place for now. The latest order does not decide the underlying legal dispute, leaving the company and the regulator awaiting further judicial consideration.

Key takeaways

• Fresh manufacturing restricted: PepsiCo cannot currently manufacture new Sting bottles and cans carrying the “energy drink” label under the interim order.
• Existing inventory can be sold: An October 6 Delhi High Court order allowed PepsiCo to sell already-manufactured stock bearing the description, subject to accounting requirements.
• Court seeks clarification: On October 12, a division bench asked the single judge to explain the manufacturing restriction within one week.
• FSSAI’s position: The regulator argues that its food-category system is not intended to determine product names and that certain functional claims may be misleading or impermissible.
• Commercial implications: PepsiCo has previously told the court that hundreds of millions of bottles and millions of cans with the label were already in circulation.
• Industry-wide impact: Other beverage companies, including Red Bull, Monster and Reliance Consumer Products, have also faced regulatory scrutiny over the description.
• No final ruling yet: The latest court action concerns the interim restriction and its reasoning, rather than a final determination of the labeling dispute.

Delhi High Court Seeks Clarification on Sting Label Ban

The latest development followed PepsiCo’s challenge to regulatory directions requiring it to remove the “energy drink” description from products including Sting and Adrenaline Rush.

On October 12, a division bench of the Delhi High Court, headed by Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, declined to provide immediate relief. Instead, it directed the single-judge bench to explain within one week why PepsiCo should not be allowed to manufacture additional products carrying the label.

The division bench noted that the earlier order did not spell out the reasons for restricting further production. It also clarified that the appeal had been disposed of without the court expressing a view on the merits of the underlying dispute.

This distinction matters. The court has not conclusively ruled that PepsiCo is prohibited from using the term in every circumstance, nor has it granted the company permission to resume manufacturing new stock with the label. The existing restriction remains relevant while the single judge provides the requested explanation and the legal proceedings continue.

The immediate outcome is therefore procedural rather than a final victory for either side. PepsiCo has not secured the relief it sought, but the appellate court has asked for a clearer justification for the restriction.

What the October 6 Order Means for PepsiCo

The October 12 proceedings followed an interim order passed by Justice Amit Mahajan on October 6. That order allowed PepsiCo India and its bottlers or contractors to sell stock already manufactured with the “energy drink” description. It also directed the company to maintain an account of that inventory.

However, the order expressly stated that the permission to sell existing stock did not authorise further manufacturing with the disputed label.

The distinction separates inventory already produced from future production. Companies can face different commercial and regulatory consequences when goods are already manufactured, distributed or sitting with retailers compared with products that have yet to enter the supply chain.

For PepsiCo, the existing-stock permission provides a limited route to sell eligible inventory without immediately relabeling every bottle and can already produced. The manufacturing restriction, however, affects how new products can be packaged and introduced into the market while the legal dispute remains unresolved.

The October 6 order also arose from PepsiCo’s challenge to directions issued on June 30, 2026, and a consequential communication dated July 17. The company argued that the directions had been issued without a show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard.

The court’s interim relief on October 6 stayed the challenged directions until the next date of hearing, while preserving the restriction on manufacturing new stock with the disputed description. The October 12 appellate proceedings addressed the lack of stated reasons for that restriction.

Why FSSAI Is Challenging the ‘Energy Drink’ Label

The dispute centres on the difference between a food category used for regulatory classification and a name permitted on consumer-facing packaging.

FSSAI has said that the food category system is not intended to serve as a product-naming or labeling framework. It has also raised concerns about brands describing certain beverages as “energy drinks” and making functional claims that may suggest effects on the body or mind.

In July 2026, the regulator said it had issued notices to several beverage companies over what it described as possible misbranding and misleading claims. The companies and products named included PepsiCo’s Sting and Adrenaline Rush, Red Bull, Monster, Hell Energy and Reliance Consumer Products’ Campa Energy Drink–Gold Boost.

FSSAI also questioned claims such as “stimulates mind,” “energises body,” “enhances focus,” “boosts energy levels” and “aids in general weakness.” According to the regulator’s position, such claims are not permissible unless supported by the applicable legal framework.

The issue is not simply whether a beverage contains caffeine. A product may be regulated as a caffeinated beverage while the regulator separately questions whether the words used on its packaging accurately describe the product under applicable labeling rules.

That distinction is central to the dispute. Manufacturers have relied on the regulatory framework for certain carbonated and non-carbonated water-based flavored drinks, while FSSAI has argued that the existence of a food category does not automatically authorise its use as a product name.

The court will have to consider the parties’ legal arguments and the relevant regulatory provisions as the proceedings continue.

PepsiCo’s Legal Argument and the Regulator’s Response

In its petition, PepsiCo challenged the June 30 directions on procedural and regulatory grounds. The company argued that the orders were issued without a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing.

PepsiCo also referred to an FSSAI advisory dated March 28, 2024. According to the company’s submissions recorded in the October 6 court order, the advisory permitted the use of the term “energy drink” on products licensed under specified food categories for carbonated and non-carbonated water-based flavored drinks.

The company argued that its products fell within those categories and questioned why the regulator had subsequently treated the description as potentially misleading.

The government’s counsel presented a different point. As recorded in the court order, the counsel referred to minutes of a meeting held on July 20, 2026, and said the manufacturers, including PepsiCo, had agreed to discontinue the term “energy drink” in future production. According to that submission, the main concern was the treatment of inventory already manufactured.

These are competing legal positions, not a final finding by the court. PepsiCo’s reliance on the earlier advisory and the government’s reference to the meeting minutes will need to be considered in the context of the relevant regulations and proceedings.

The October 6 order noted that the challenged directions had been issued without a show-cause notice and without an opportunity for a hearing. It granted interim relief regarding the challenged directions but did not permit fresh production using the disputed wording.

The Commercial Impact on Sting and PepsiCo

The labeling dispute has potential implications for packaging, manufacturing, distribution and brand communication. For a high-volume beverage such as Sting, changing the wording on new packaging may require coordination across production lines, bottlers, distributors, retailers and marketing materials.

PepsiCo had told the court that the regulatory order could have “grave commercial consequences” and affect substantial investments. According to the figures cited in the October 12 report by Mint, the company had 492 million bottles and 26 million cans carrying the label in circulation as of July 31.

Those figures illustrate the scale of the inventory issue, but they should not be interpreted as the number of products that remain unsold today. The quantity still available for sale will depend on subsequent distribution and sales.

The ability to sell existing eligible stock is commercially important because a restriction on labeling does not automatically mean all previously manufactured products must be withdrawn from the market. The precise treatment of inventory depends on the applicable court orders and regulatory directions.

For new production, PepsiCo must account for the restriction while the matter remains pending. Packaging changes can involve design updates, printing schedules, inventory planning and coordination with manufacturing partners. Companies may also need to revise advertising and digital product descriptions to ensure that claims remain consistent with regulatory requirements.

However, the current proceedings do not establish the amount of any financial loss, the cost of relabeling or the effect on Sting’s sales. Those outcomes would depend on the duration of the restriction, PepsiCo’s compliance measures and any further judicial or regulatory decisions.

Other Beverage Brands Are Also Affected

PepsiCo is not the only beverage company dealing with questions over the “energy drink” description. FSSAI’s July notice identified several brands, reflecting a wider regulatory dispute rather than an isolated disagreement over Sting.

The Delhi High Court has passed interim orders involving other manufacturers as well. On September 29, the court set aside a notice served on Red Bull, with the proceedings highlighting the need to give the company an opportunity to respond before the regulator passed the relevant order. The court has also considered challenges involving Reliance Consumer Products’ Campa-branded beverage.

The cases have their own procedural histories, and the relief granted to one company should not automatically be treated as applying identically to another. Each company’s position depends on the specific orders, claims and facts before the court.

The broader dispute nevertheless creates uncertainty for beverage manufacturers that have marketed caffeinated products using the “energy drink” descriptor. Companies may need to reconsider packaging, labeling, online listings and marketing language while determining how to comply with the regulator’s interpretation.

For the industry, the issue extends beyond a single word on a bottle. Product descriptions influence how consumers understand a beverage, while labeling rules determine how manufacturers may communicate its category and intended attributes.

India’s Energy Drinks Market Raises the Stakes

The dispute comes as India’s energy drinks market continues to expand. Mint, citing Euromonitor, reported that retail sales in the category were growing at an estimated annual rate of 12.6%, with the market projected to reach $1.6 billion by 2028.

That projection is an industry estimate, not a guaranteed outcome. Nevertheless, it indicates why the labeling question matters to established brands and companies seeking to expand their presence in caffeinated beverages.

A growing market can attract more competition, product launches and advertising. It also increases the importance of consistent rules governing packaging, claims and consumer information.

For PepsiCo, Sting is an established brand in the Indian beverage market, while Adrenaline Rush gives the company another product in the caffeinated beverage segment. Any change to the way these products are described may require adjustments to brand communication and packaging plans.

Rivals face similar considerations if their products use the disputed term. A consistent regulatory approach could give manufacturers greater clarity, but uncertainty over how the rules are interpreted and enforced can complicate planning.

The eventual outcome may influence how companies name and market products in the category. Until the court and regulator provide greater clarity, however, it would be premature to assume that the dispute will result in a permanent ban on the products themselves.

What Happens Next in the Case?

The immediate next step is for the single-judge bench to provide the explanation requested by the division bench within one week of the October 12 order. The appellate court specifically sought clarification on why PepsiCo should not be permitted to manufacture further products carrying the “energy drink” label.

That clarification could help establish the reasoning behind the interim restriction and inform the next stage of the legal process. It does not, by itself, determine whether PepsiCo’s interpretation of the labeling rules will ultimately prevail.

The underlying dispute also involves questions about procedural fairness, the effect of previous regulatory guidance and the treatment of future production compared with existing inventory. The court may need to consider these issues alongside the government’s position on the manufacturers’ July meeting.

Until a further order changes the position, PepsiCo must distinguish between eligible existing inventory that can be sold under the October 6 order and new stock carrying the disputed wording, which remains restricted.

The Bigger Picture

The PepsiCo-Sting case highlights the commercial consequences of uncertainty over product labeling. A term that has been used in marketing can become the subject of a regulatory dispute when the regulator questions whether it is permitted under the applicable food standards. For manufacturers, the challenge is to maintain compliance without creating unnecessary disruption to production, distribution and consumer communication.

The case also shows why procedural safeguards matter in regulatory enforcement. Companies must comply with applicable rules, while regulators need to explain the legal basis for their directions and follow the required process. The Delhi High Court’s latest order does not settle the labeling question, but it seeks a clearer explanation of the restriction affecting new production.

Looking Ahead

The next development to watch is the single judge’s clarification following the division bench’s one-week deadline. That explanation may shape PepsiCo’s immediate legal options, but it should not be mistaken for a final ruling on whether the “energy drink” description is permissible. Until the court changes the position, the restriction on manufacturing new Sting stock with that label remains relevant, while eligible existing inventory may continue to be sold under the earlier order.

For the beverage industry, the longer-term question is how FSSAI’s interpretation of product naming and functional claims will be applied across competing brands. Companies will be watching for greater clarity on labeling standards, permissible descriptions and enforcement procedures. The outcome could affect packaging and marketing decisions across India’s caffeinated beverage market, but its precise commercial impact will depend on the final legal position and how manufacturers adapt.