PepsiCo and Monster Beverage have taken India’s food safety regulator to court over restrictions on the use of the term “energy drink” on high-caffeine beverages. The companies argue that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) directive could cause significant commercial damage, with PepsiCo telling a Delhi court that 492 million bottles and 26 million cans carrying the disputed label were in circulation as of July 31.
The legal challenges mark a new stage in a regulatory dispute that began in June and expanded in July when FSSAI ordered several beverage companies to remove “energy drink” and similar descriptions from affected products. The regulator says India does not have a formally notified food category standard for “energy drink” and has also objected to certain functional claims associated with such products. The companies, meanwhile, have raised concerns about due process, inventory, investments and brand disruption.
Key takeaways
- PepsiCo and Monster Beverage have filed separate legal challenges against FSSAI’s restrictions on the “energy drink” label.
- PepsiCo says 492 million bottles and 26 million cans carrying the disputed label were in circulation on July 31.
- PepsiCo’s court filing argues the prohibition could have “grave commercial consequences” and affect substantial investments.
- Monster Energy India says it received no prior notice and is suffering financial and reputational damage, according to its court filing.
- FSSAI gave companies a 90-day period to remove “energy drink” and similar descriptions from affected high-caffeine beverages.
- FSSAI says the “energy drink” category is not formally defined under India’s food regulations and has objected to certain functional claims.
- Red Bull has already obtained relief from the Delhi High Court in a separate challenge.
- Hell Energy has also obtained a stay from a court in western India, according to Reuters reporting.
- India’s energy-drink retail market is growing at an estimated 12.6% annually and is projected to reach $1.6 billion by 2028.
PepsiCo and Monster Take the Dispute to Court
The dispute has moved from regulatory correspondence to formal litigation.
PepsiCo India filed a 358-page petition in Delhi on September 29, according to Reuters, challenging FSSAI’s action. The company argued that the restriction could have serious commercial consequences because of its existing investment and the large quantity of products already carrying the affected terminology.
PepsiCo also argues that it was not given an opportunity to explain its position before the regulatory directive was issued. The company has asked the court to set aside the decision.
Monster Energy India filed its own challenge on September 30. According to the filing reviewed by Reuters, Monster similarly said it had not received prior notice and argued that it was suffering financial losses and reputational damage.
The two companies are therefore challenging the regulatory action on both commercial and procedural grounds.
The cases are expected to be heard by a Delhi court in the coming days.
PepsiCo Says 518 Million Labeled Packs Were in Circulation
The scale of PepsiCo’s inventory illustrates why the labeling issue has become a major operational problem.
According to the company’s court filing, its inventory carrying the disputed labeling included:
| Product packaging | Quantity reported |
|---|---|
| Bottles | 492 million |
| Cans | 26 million |
| Total | 518 million |
The figures refer to products in circulation as of July 31, rather than a measure of annual sales.
For PepsiCo, changing the wording on packaging is therefore not simply a matter of updating future production. Existing products have already passed through manufacturing, distribution and retail networks.
The company argues that the restriction could affect investments made around products marketed within the energy-drink segment. The filing also raises the question of whether companies should be given an opportunity to respond before a major labeling decision is implemented.
The exact financial value of the affected inventory has not been publicly disclosed in the Reuters report.
What FSSAI Is Objecting To
FSSAI’s action is based on how high-caffeine beverages are being named, labelled and marketed.
In July, the regulator said it had issued notices to six beverage brands, including PepsiCo’s Sting and Adrenaline Rush, Monster Energy, Red Bull, Hell Energy and Reliance Consumer Products’ Campa Energy Drink-Gold Boost.
FSSAI said it had not notified a formal standard for an “Energy Drink” category and objected to the use of the term as a product descriptor.
The regulator also said that functional or therapeutic-style claims such as “vitalizes body and mind,” “enhancing focus,” “boost energy levels” and claims relating to general weakness were not permissible for food products under the applicable framework.
The regulatory position has created a distinction between what consumers commonly call an energy drink and how the products are formally classified under Indian food regulations.
That distinction is at the heart of the dispute.
Why the Regulatory Position Has Created Confusion
The current controversy is particularly notable because FSSAI had previously addressed the use of “energy” terminology.
In a March 2024 advisory concerning e-commerce food listings, FSSAI said that the term “Energy” could be used on products licensed under certain standardized categories covering carbonated and non-carbonated water-based flavoured drinks. The advisory was specifically about how such products were categorized on e-commerce websites and also said “Health Drink” was not a defined or standardized category.
The 2026 enforcement action has therefore raised questions among industry participants about how the regulator’s interpretation has evolved.
The Economic Times reported that industry representatives had pointed to the earlier regulatory position while objecting to the new restrictions.
FSSAI, however, has maintained that “energy drink” is not a formally recognized category in the manner companies have been using it and has moved against the labeling and associated claims.
This difference in interpretation is one reason the issue has shifted into the courts.
The 90-Day Deadline
FSSAI gave affected companies 90 days to remove “energy drink” and similar descriptions from high-caffeine beverages.
The regulator did not agree to industry demands for a longer, one-year transition period, according to Reuters reporting in August. Companies had argued that changing packaging would take considerably longer because large volumes of printed bottles, cans and packaging materials were already in production or distribution.
The short transition period became especially contentious because companies were simultaneously dealing with products already in the market.
Reuters reported that several Indian states began seizing affected stock after the regulatory direction, according to the company filings.
For manufacturers, the issue can extend across the entire supply chain.
A label change may require new artwork, printing plates or packaging materials, production planning, distributor coordination and the withdrawal or replacement of existing inventory.
For a mass-market product such as Sting, the scale of that process is substantial.
Sting Helped Transform India’s Energy-Drink Market
PepsiCo’s Sting has become an important part of the growth story behind India’s energy-drink market.
PepsiCo launched Sting in India in 2017. Reuters, citing Euromonitor, reported that the ₹20 plastic bottle helped the product gain popularity among younger consumers and in rural markets. PepsiCo also markets Adrenaline Rush in India.
The low-price positioning helped energy drinks move beyond their traditional premium positioning.
The resulting market expansion has attracted multiple international and domestic players, including Red Bull, Monster, Hell Energy and Reliance Consumer Products.
That growth has also increased the commercial importance of the category name.
If consumers have become accustomed to identifying a particular product as an “energy drink,” removing the terminology from the package could affect how the product is communicated at the point of sale.
Companies are therefore concerned not only about printing costs but also about brand recognition and positioning.
India’s Energy-Drink Market Is Still Expanding
The regulatory fight is taking place against the backdrop of a rapidly growing beverage market.
Reuters reported that Indian energy-drink retail sales are growing at 12.6% annually, faster than the comparable growth rates in the United States and China. The market is expected to reach approximately $1.6 billion by 2028.
| India energy-drink market indicator | Reported figure |
|---|---|
| Annual retail-sales growth | 12.6% |
| Projected market size by 2028 | $1.6 billion |
| Sting India launch | 2017 |
| Sting bottle price cited by Reuters | ₹20 |
The figures show why the regulatory dispute matters beyond the two companies currently challenging FSSAI.
Any change to the rules governing category descriptions could affect the broader competitive landscape, including companies developing new caffeinated beverages for the Indian market.
Red Bull’s Court Victory Changes the Legal Landscape
PepsiCo and Monster are not entering the courtroom without precedent.
On September 29, the Delhi High Court quashed FSSAI’s order against Red Bull, according to Reuters. The court found that the regulator had taken the decision without giving Red Bull an opportunity to explain its position.
The ruling is significant for the wider industry because the procedural argument is also central to PepsiCo’s and Monster’s challenges.
It does not automatically determine the outcome of their cases. Each company has its own filing and circumstances, and courts will decide the individual challenges.
Nevertheless, the Red Bull ruling provides an important recent judicial development in the same regulatory dispute.
A separate court in western India has also put the government’s decision on hold for Hell Energy, Reuters reported.
These developments mean the enforcement position is no longer uniform across all affected brands.
What About the Word “Energy”?
The dispute is partly about a single word, but its commercial significance is much larger.
“Energy drink” has become a recognizable consumer category. It communicates a particular type of beverage without requiring consumers to understand the underlying regulatory classification.
FSSAI’s preferred alternative has reportedly included terminology such as “caffeinated beverages.” Industry representatives have objected that such a term could be considerably broader because it may encompass many different beverages containing caffeine, including products that consumers do not traditionally regard as energy drinks.
That creates a branding problem.
A company can technically comply with a labeling requirement while still facing questions about how it communicates the product’s identity to consumers.
For established brands, changing the category description could also require changes across packaging, advertising and promotional material.
The Health Debate Behind the Regulation
The regulatory action is not occurring in isolation from health concerns.
Energy drinks commonly contain caffeine and may also contain substantial amounts of sugar and ingredients such as taurine. Regulators in different countries have examined potential health concerns associated with high-caffeine beverages, particularly for younger consumers. Reuters reported that England is scheduled to prohibit sales of high-caffeine energy drinks to children under 16 from April next year.
India’s current dispute, however, is specifically centered on labeling, product categorization and related claims.
It is therefore important not to describe FSSAI’s action as a blanket prohibition on caffeinated beverages.
The products themselves have not simply disappeared from the Indian market because of the dispute. Instead, the regulatory fight concerns how affected products can be named, labelled and marketed.
What the Dispute Means for PepsiCo and Monster
For PepsiCo, the immediate issue is managing a large amount of inventory carrying the disputed terminology while defending its position in court.
The company’s disclosed figure of 518 million bottles and cans demonstrates the scale of the transition problem. Even if future production can adopt new labels relatively quickly, replacing or managing existing stock creates additional operational complexity.
Monster faces a similar issue, although the public information available about its inventory is more limited.
The company has specifically raised concerns about financial and reputational harm, according to its court filing as reported by Reuters.
For both companies, the litigation could determine whether the regulator’s directive can remain in force as issued or whether procedural or substantive changes will be required.
What the Case Means for the Indian Beverage Industry
The dispute could have implications beyond the current group of energy-drink companies.
India’s packaged-food and beverage industry relies heavily on standardized product descriptions, labeling systems and marketing claims. Regulatory changes affecting established terminology can create costs when companies have already built manufacturing and distribution systems around those descriptions.
The issue also highlights the importance of regulatory certainty.
From the industry’s perspective, companies need sufficient clarity about what product descriptions are permissible before committing large amounts of money to packaging, advertising and distribution.
From the regulator’s perspective, product labels need to comply with food-safety requirements and should not create misleading impressions about what a product is or what it can do.
The courts are now being asked to examine where those considerations intersect.
What Happens Next?
The immediate next step is the court proceedings involving PepsiCo and Monster. Reuters reported that the cases were likely to be taken up by a Delhi judge in the following week.
The outcome could clarify whether FSSAI followed the required process before directing companies to change established product descriptions.
The Red Bull judgment may also become relevant because it centered on the opportunity given to the company to present its position before the regulator acted. However, the PepsiCo and Monster cases will need to be assessed on their own records.
For the beverage industry, the bigger question is whether India ultimately establishes a clearer and more stable framework for caffeinated beverages and the terminology used to market them.
The Bigger Picture
India’s energy-drink market has developed rapidly, with low-priced products helping broaden consumption and international brands competing alongside domestic entrants. The category’s projected $1.6 billion market size by 2028 gives the labeling dispute significance well beyond the cost of changing printed packaging.
At the same time, FSSAI’s intervention reflects a broader regulatory focus on how food and beverage products are categorized and marketed. The central tension is now between regulatory enforcement, consumer-facing terminology, established commercial investment and procedural safeguards.
Looking Ahead
For PepsiCo and Monster, the court cases will determine whether the companies must continue with the labeling changes or receive relief while the underlying regulatory questions are examined. The large inventory figures cited by PepsiCo show why the timing and scope of any enforcement decision could have immediate operational consequences.
For FSSAI and the wider beverage industry, the cases could help establish how future labeling disputes should be handled, particularly when a product category has strong consumer recognition but its formal regulatory definition is contested. Until the courts resolve the challenges, companies operating in India’s energy-drink segment face continued uncertainty over labeling, marketing and inventory management.
FAQs
Why is FSSAI restricting the term “energy drink” in India?
FSSAI has said that India does not have a formally notified standard for an “Energy Drink” category and has objected to the use of the term and certain associated functional claims on high-caffeine beverages.
Which PepsiCo product is affected?
PepsiCo’s Sting is one of the prominent products affected by the regulatory action. PepsiCo also markets Adrenaline Rush in India. FSSAI’s July action included both products among the brands facing scrutiny.
How much inventory does PepsiCo say is affected?
PepsiCo told the Delhi court that 492 million bottles and 26 million cans carrying the disputed labels were in circulation as of July 31, for a combined total of 518 million units.
Has the “energy drink” label been permanently banned for all companies?
The legal position remains unsettled. PepsiCo and Monster are challenging FSSAI’s action, while Red Bull has already obtained relief from the Delhi High Court and Hell Energy has obtained a separate stay, according to Reuters.
Get the day’s top stories in your inbox
One concise email. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
