⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Real court arguments, crisp audio, with context.

Court recordings can be difficult to follow, and many suffer from poor audio quality. This podcast enhances the audio, provides a brief introduction to each case, and explains legal concepts that may be unfamiliar to some listeners.

We hope these enhancements make oral argument recordings easier to understand, more accessible, and more enjoyable to listen to.

Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube /feed.xml Open RSS

Tinamarie Barrales v. Ghost Beverages LLC — 7th Cir. (Sep 23, 2026)

No. 25-2555 Argued September 23, 2026 Published September 24, 2026

The Seventh Circuit hears Barrales versus Ghost Beverages. Tinamarie Barrales and Michael Williams say they bought Ghost's Sour Patch Kids energy drinks because the candy branding made the drinks seem suitable for children. The label states that each can contains 200 milligrams of caffeine and is not for anyone under eighteen. They sued Ghost and trademark licensor Mondelēz International under Illinois and California consumer-protection laws. The district court dismissed the complaint before trial and later denied permission to amend it. The appeal asks whether an adult shopper could plausibly be misled by the front label despite the disclosures elsewhere on the can, and whether Mondelēz may be liable for its role as licensor. Barrales and Williams say those questions should not have been resolved against them at this stage; Ghost and Mondelēz say the label is clear and that the complaint did not connect Mondelēz to any deceptive act.

Tinamarie Barrales v. Ghost Beverages LLC (No. 25-2555) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 23, 2026.

Sources
Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105):https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/nv.25-2555.25-2555_09_23_2026.mp3
Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit:https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29
Class-action complaint — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Barrales-v-Ghost-and-Mondelez-complaint.pdf
Dismissal order — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Barrales-v-Ghost-March-25-2025.pdf
Notice of appeal — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Barrales-v-Ghost-notice-of-appeal.pdf
Ghost Beverages dismissal brief — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:https://blog.priceplow.com/wp-content/uploads/barrales-v-ghost-mondelez-2024-05-13-ghost-memorandum-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
Mondelēz dismissal brief — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:https://blog.priceplow.com/wp-content/uploads/barrales-v-ghost-mondelez-2024-05-13-mondelez-supplemental-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
Independent case report — Legal Newsline:https://www.legalnewsline.com/cook-county-record/class-action-accuses-mondelez-and-ghost-beverages-of-misleadingly-marketing-harmful-energy-drinks-to-kids/article_886d8f4b-d559-51b1-a68f-7c5f7feaf548.html

0:00
0:00