PepsiCo, Monster Marketed With ‘Energy Drink’ Label to Dupe Consumers: FSSAI

India’s food safety regulator, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), has accused PepsiCo and Monster Beverage of deliberately using the term “energy drink” to mislead consumers. The allegation, made in court filings dated October 28, marks a fresh escalation in the regulatory dispute over how high-caffeine beverages are marketed and labelled in India.

The dispute centres on the regulator’s position that Indian food safety rules do not formally establish a separate product category called “energy drinks”. PepsiCo and Monster have challenged the restrictions, arguing that the regulator acted without adequate notice or an opportunity for them to respond. The Delhi High Court has granted limited relief to the companies, allowing them to sell certain existing inventory with the disputed labels while restricting the use of the term on newly manufactured products.

FSSAI Accuses Beverage Companies of Misleading Consumers

In its court submissions, FSSAI argued that PepsiCo and Monster deliberately marketed their products as energy drinks despite the absence of a formally notified regulatory standard for that category.

The regulator used strong language in its October 28 filing, alleging that the companies were marketing products under the description “energy drink” specifically to dupe consumers. It has asked the court to dismiss the companies’ challenges to its labelling restrictions.

FSSAI’s central argument is that the Food Safety and Standards Regulations do not recognise “energy drink” as an independent category for product naming and labelling. It has also argued that the Food Category System is intended to classify food products for regulatory purposes, rather than provide companies with permission to use particular marketing descriptions.

The regulator’s position is part of a broader effort to prevent food and beverage companies from making claims that could create misleading impressions about a product’s ingredients, benefits or effects.

How the Dispute Began

The controversy intensified in June 2026, when FSSAI moved against several beverage companies over the use of the “energy drink” description.

The regulator subsequently issued notices to businesses marketing products under that label, including PepsiCo, Monster, Red Bull, Hell Energy and Reliance Consumer Products.

The affected products include PepsiCo’s Sting and Adrenaline Rush, Monster Energy, Reliance Consumer’s Campa Energy Drink Gold Boost, Red Bull Energy Drink and Hell Energy.

FSSAI said that no separate standard had been notified for energy drinks under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the regulations framed under it. It also objected to promotional claims suggesting that these beverages could boost energy levels, improve focus, vitalise the body and mind, or help address general weakness.

The regulator said such functional or therapeutic claims were not permissible under the existing framework for food products.

The companies, however, disputed the interpretation. They argued that their products fall under the existing category of caffeinated beverages and that the regulatory framework already provides for their classification.

Delhi High Court Provides Limited Relief

The dispute has moved into the courts, with beverage companies challenging FSSAI’s restrictions on the grounds that the regulator did not follow the appropriate procedure before issuing its directions.

The Delhi High Court has granted relief to companies including PepsiCo and Monster, but the relief does not amount to a final decision on whether the disputed labels can continue to be used.

The court permitted the companies and their bottlers or contractors to sell certain products manufactured with the “energy drink” description before the relevant court order. However, the permission does not allow them to manufacture fresh stock carrying the same label.

This distinction is important for companies with large distribution networks and substantial quantities of packaged beverages already in circulation. It gives them a limited opportunity to clear eligible inventory while the legal dispute continues.

The court’s proceedings have also involved other companies, including Reliance Consumer Products and Red Bull. The companies have raised concerns about the financial and operational consequences of the regulator’s directions.

The latest proceedings are expected to examine FSSAI’s defence and the companies’ objections to the process followed by the regulator.

FSSAI Raises Concerns About Caffeine, Sugar and Taurine

Beyond the labelling question, FSSAI has highlighted potential public health concerns associated with high-caffeine beverages.

In its court filings, the regulator pointed to the presence of caffeine, sugar and taurine in these products. It argued that the composition and marketing of such beverages raise questions about consumer awareness and the possible health implications of regular consumption.

Caffeine is a stimulant that can temporarily increase alertness. However, excessive consumption can cause problems such as sleep disruption, restlessness and a rapid heartbeat. The effects depend on the amount consumed, individual sensitivity and a person’s overall caffeine intake.

Sugar content is another concern, particularly for consumers who regularly consume sweetened beverages. Frequent intake of sugar-sweetened drinks can contribute to excessive calorie consumption and increase the risk of weight gain and related metabolic problems.

Taurine is an amino acid commonly included in energy drink formulations. Its presence alone does not establish that a beverage is harmful, but FSSAI has cited concerns about the overall combination of ingredients and the way such products are promoted.

The regulator’s argument is that consumers should not be encouraged to interpret these beverages as products offering general health or performance benefits without appropriate regulatory support.

India’s Energy Drink Market Faces Regulatory Uncertainty

The dispute comes at a time when India’s energy drink market is expanding rapidly. According to market estimates cited by Reuters from Euromonitor, the market could reach $1.6 billion by 2028, with annual sales growth of around 12.6%.

The category has attracted major domestic and international companies. PepsiCo expanded its presence with Sting in 2017, while Monster, Red Bull and other brands compete for consumers seeking caffeinated beverages.

Reliance Consumer Products has also entered the segment through Campa Energy Drink Gold Boost, adding another major player to the market.

The regulatory dispute could affect how companies position their products, design packaging, plan advertising campaigns and communicate with retailers. If FSSAI’s interpretation is upheld, brands may need to reconsider the terminology used on cans, bottles and promotional material.

For companies operating at scale, a change in labelling can involve more than updating a product description. It can require packaging redesigns, inventory adjustments, changes to marketing campaigns and coordination with distributors and retailers.

The uncertainty could also influence new product launches and investment decisions as companies wait for greater clarity on the regulatory framework.

Other Companies Are Also Challenging the Restrictions

PepsiCo and Monster are not the only businesses affected by FSSAI’s position. Red Bull, Hell Energy and Reliance Consumer Products have also been involved in legal challenges relating to the use of the “energy drink” label.

The cases could establish an important precedent for how India’s food regulator interprets product categories and marketing descriptions.

The companies have argued that the restrictions could cause commercial disruption, particularly because they believe their products are already covered by existing provisions governing caffeinated beverages.

FSSAI, meanwhile, maintains that product classification does not automatically authorise the use of a particular marketing description. It wants companies to follow the labelling and advertising requirements under the existing food safety framework.

The Bigger Picture

The dispute highlights a growing tension between India’s fast-expanding packaged beverage industry and regulators seeking tighter oversight of food labelling and marketing claims.

For consumers, the central issue is transparency. Product descriptions and advertising can influence purchasing decisions, particularly when beverages are promoted around energy, alertness and performance. Regulators want consumers to understand what they are buying rather than rely on broad claims that may not be supported by the applicable rules.

For the industry, the case could clarify the boundary between a product’s regulatory classification and the commercial language used to sell it. That distinction matters for companies investing heavily in branding and distribution across India’s competitive beverage market.

Looking Ahead

The next stage of the legal proceedings will be important for PepsiCo, Monster and other beverage companies seeking clarity on the use of the “energy drink” description. The court will have to consider the regulator’s arguments about consumer protection alongside the companies’ objections to the procedure followed when the restrictions were introduced. Until a final decision is reached, the distinction between existing inventory and newly manufactured products remains commercially significant.

The outcome could shape how caffeinated beverages are labelled and marketed across India. If FSSAI’s position prevails, companies may have to revise product packaging and promotional strategies, while a decision favouring the businesses could limit the regulator’s ability to impose similar restrictions without following the required legal process. For now, the dispute remains unresolved, with both consumer protection and regulatory procedure at the centre of the case.