Panera Bread’s highly caffeinated Charged Lemonade is now blamed for a second death, according to a lawsuit filed Monday.
Dennis Brown, of Fleming Island, Florida, drank three Charged Lemonades from a local Panera on Oct. 9 and then suffered a fatal cardiac arrest on his way home, the suit says.
Brown, 46, had an unspecified chromosomal deficiency disorder, a developmental delay and a mild intellectual disability. He lived independently, frequently stopping at Panera after his shifts at a supermarket, the legal complaint says. Because he had high blood pressure, he did not consume energy drinks, it adds.
I did answer the question. Let me repeat incase you have trouble reading.
They called it lemonade, put it in a lineup among non caffeinated drinks (right next to their regular lemonade), put zero warning labels on and offered free refills on a drink that rode so close to the line of safe daily intakes that having two would cause serious problems even in healthy people.
They basically did everything they possibly could to hide this information. A single line in an ingredients is not sufficient warning because no reasonable consumer would check the ingredients of a lemonade for dangerous levels of caffeine.
Nope! FDA doesn’t actually regulate restaurants, and Charged Lemonade isn’t something that can be bought in store, only at Panera restaurants. FDA officially has no jurisdiction here:
https://www.fda.gov/food/food-industry/how-start-food-business
What you’ve done is mix fact with opinion to massively misrepresent the situation. You’re welcome to try that in a civil lawsuit, but if I’m on the jury, I would vote to dismiss the case. 
What did I mix, exactly? The only bit that is opinion was me stating they did everything they could to hide the information.
I’ve stated my case, and I find your counter argument insufficient. If you’re looking for some endless debate, you’re not gonna get one. The guy knew his health situation, drank a drink he knew better than to drink labeled charged lemonade. Panera bread is not responsible for a risk that the man took knowingly.
Sorry if that’s not good enough for you, but it’s going to have to be. Have a good night. 
Just throwing in my 2¢ here, your argument is devoid of any logic. You’re assuming he knew that those drinks had caffeine, even though the source specifically states the victim intentionally avoided caffeine due to his pre-existing condition. “Charged” isn’t a term that is typically used for drinks to indicate they have caffeine. Might as well call it zesty or smoky as neither of those terms imply any potential harm. It was negligent of Panera, most lawyers who have publicly commented or reviewed the claims agree that Panera will be found culpable or settle out of court. Being intentionally dense and abrasive isn’t an argument.
If you don’t actually have a fact based response, just say so.
Lol, good night