Or three, there’s more to the case than was reported to us. If the marketing was missing (some stores it is) she might have a case. The article makes no mention of that.

There is really no proof that the lemonade is what killed her

You don’t need to look for “proof” in civil cases. If the lemonade is more likely than not to have killed her, that’s enough. And I think any good lawyer can push a case like this across that bar for a typical jury.

this is just her parents wanting someone to blame.

Maybe. We don’t know all the details. I’m the one arguing in favor of Panera in most comments, but I’m really arguing in favor of common sense and not inventing a clear win for either side off a small article that was lying to us.

Unless they can prove without a doubt there was negligence on Panera’s part

That’s not how the law works. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a criminal standard. “Preponderance of evidence” is the civil standard, and it’s a low bar. Honestly, if we ignore all other evidence and only point out other reasonable people in this thread who were confused about the caffeinated nature of this beverage, we would have it.

So if it hit court (it won’t), Panera would likely show evidence of its marketing. The girl’s parents would perhaps show evidence the marketing collateral was placed wrong or (from the article) suggest they were misleading with the “Dark Coffee” claim in the way quoted. There’s several tactics they could take, honestly.

then this lawsuit is frivolous.

I would say this lawsuit is a lot of things, but frivolous isn’t one of them. It’s not intended to harass or delay. It’s intended to win.