The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2019–2020
Bud Light's Super Bowl dig at rivals' corn syrup triggered a year of injunctions
Anheuser-Busch's Super Bowl ads said rival beers use corn syrup. MillerCoors sued, won an injunction forcing a packaging change, then lost on appeal.
Anheuser-Busch · MillerCoors · 2019-02
What happened
During the February 2019 Super Bowl, Anheuser-Busch ran ads for Bud Light emphasizing that rival light beers Miller Lite and Coors Light are brewed using corn syrup, part of a roughly $30 million campaign built around Bud Light's own corn-syrup-free brewing process.
MillerCoors sued in March 2019, arguing the campaign had a 'nefarious purpose' to mislead consumers into thinking corn syrup remained in the finished beer, when it says the corn syrup is only a fermentation aid that doesn't survive into the final product. A federal judge partially agreed, barring specific language from future Bud Light ads in May 2019, then issuing a broader injunction in September 2019 that stopped Anheuser-Busch from using 'no corn syrup' claims and icons on Bud Light packaging altogether.
Anheuser-Busch appealed, and in 2020 the Seventh Circuit reversed, ruling the brewer was free to keep running the comparative campaign. What began as a Super Bowl ad had by then cost both sides more than a year of litigation, forced Bud Light to alter its packaging during the injunction period, and ended without the clear win either side had first claimed.
Why it happened
- Comparative advertising built on a factual ingredient can still mislead if the audience draws a conclusion — 'contains corn syrup' — the process doesn't support, and a court initially agreed.
- Anheuser-Busch committed to the packaging claim before the legal question was settled, so the injunction forced a mid-campaign change a pre-cleared claim would have avoided.
- Both companies spent over a year in litigation over one Super Bowl ad's framing, showing a comparative claim built for maximum sting can become a prolonged legal cost regardless of who wins.
The lesson
A comparative ad built on a technically true but easily misread fact invites exactly the lawsuit it got — a court doesn't need a claim false, only misleading, to force a mid-campaign packaging change.
Aftermath
The case became a frequently cited precedent in comparative-advertising law for how false-advertising claims are evaluated on consumer impression rather than literal truth, and for how quickly an injunction can force real-world packaging changes even before a final ruling.
Sources
- CBS News — MillerCoors sues Anheuser-Busch over Bud Light corn syrup ad in Super Bowl
- Brewbound — Federal Judge Sides with Anheuser-Busch InBev in Corn Syrup Ad Lawsuit
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
Celsius influencers claimed 'fewer calories than an apple' — a $450M hidden-ad suit
Heinz's 'Smiles' campaign painted mouths in ketchup — critics saw minstrelsy
Scott Disick pasted the sponsor's instructions into his Instagram ad
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →

Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.