Back to the archive

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.
What it costyear-plus litigation; forced packaging changecostly

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

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →