Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On October 17, 2012, Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, styled Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier v. Monster Beverage Corporation, against the Company claiming that the death of their 14 year old daughter (Anais Fournier) was caused by her consumption of two 24-ounce Monster Energy® drinks over the course of two days in December 2011. The plaintiffs allege strict product liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties and wrongful death. The plaintiffs claim general damages in excess of $25,000 and punitive damages. The Company filed a demurrer and a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint on November 19, 2012, and the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on December 19, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on June 7, 2013. The parties attended a court ordered mediation on January 23, 2014. Discovery has commenced but no trial date has been set. The Company believes that the plaintiffs’ complaint is without merit and plans a vigorous defense. The Company also believes that any such damages, if awarded, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in other complaints containing similar allegations to those presented in the Fournier lawsuit, each of which the Company believes is also without merit and would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations in the event any damages were awarded.

Securities Litigation – On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “District Court”). On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was also filed in the District Court. After the District Court consolidated the two actions and appointed the Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws was filed on August 28, 2009 (the “Consolidated Class Action Complaint”).

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s stock during the period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007 (the “Class Period”). It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the Company’s distribution coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (“AB”) and its sales of “Allied” energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the

Company on the basis of material non-public information. Plaintiff also alleged that the Company’s financial statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain promotional expenses. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

The District Court dismissed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend, on July 12, 2010. Plaintiff thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws on August 27, 2010 (the “Amended Class Action Complaint”). While similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint dropped certain of the allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and made certain new allegations, including that the Company engaged in “channel stuffing” during the Class Period that rendered false or misleading the Company’s reported sales results and certain other statements made by the defendants. In addition, it no longer named Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.

On September 4, 2012, the District Court dismissed certain of the claims in the Amended Class Action Complaint, including plaintiff’s allegations relating to promotional expenses, but denied defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to the majority of plaintiff’s claims, including plaintiff’s channel stuffing allegations. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification on December 6, 2012, which the court denied, without prejudice, on January 17, 2014. Fact discovery in the action was stayed pending resolution of the class certification motion.

Following a mediation conducted by an independent mediator, the parties are currently negotiating the terms of a possible settlement of the action. On February 11, 2014, the District Court entered an Order staying the action to allow the parties time to complete their negotiations and to prepare and file papers seeking approval of any proposed settlement. A status conference is scheduled for March 13, 2014. Management believes that any potential settlement, if completed, will be fully paid by insurance and will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

State Attorney General Inquiry – In July 2012, the Company received a subpoena from a state attorney general in connection with an investigation concerning the Company’s advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and sale of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks. As the investigation is in an early stage, it is unknown what, if any, action the state attorney general may take against the Company, the relief which may be sought in the event of any such proceeding or whether such proceeding could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

San Francisco City Attorney Litigation. On October 31, 2012, the Company received a written request for information from the City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco concerning the Company’s advertising and marketing of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks and specifically concerning the safety of its products for consumption by adolescents. In a letter dated March 29, 2013, the San Francisco City Attorney threatened to bring suit against the Company if it did not agree to take the following five steps immediately: (i) “Reformulate its product to lower the caffeine content to safe levels”; (ii) “Provide adequate warning labels”; (iii) “Cease promoting over-consumption in marketing”; (iv) “Cease use of alcohol and drug references in marketing”; and (v) “Cease targeting minors.”

On April 29, 2013, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Monster Energy Company, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the San Francisco City Attorney in United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District Court”), styled Monster Beverage Corp., et al. v. Dennis Herrera. The Company seeks a declaration from the Central District Court that the San Francisco City Attorney’s investigation and demands are impermissible and preempted, subject to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, are unconstitutional in that they violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibitions against compelled speech, content-based speech and commercial speech, are impermissibly void-for-vagueness, and/or violate the Commerce Clause. On June

3, 2013, the City Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s complaint, arguing in part that the complaint should be dismissed in light of the San Francisco Action (described below) filed on May 6, 2013. On August 22, 2013, the Central District Court granted in part and denied in part the City Attorney’s motion.

On October 17, 2013 (after the San Francisco Action described below was remanded to San Francisco Superior Court), the City Attorney filed a renewed motion to dismiss and on December 16, 2013, the Central District Court granted the City Attorney’s renewed motion, dismissing the action. The Company filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on December 18, 2013.

On May 6, 2013, the San Francisco City Attorney filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties and restitution for alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., styled People Of The State Of California ex rel. Dennis Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney v. Monster Beverage Corporation, San Francisco Superior Court (the “San Francisco Action”). The City Attorney alleges that the Company (1) mislabeled its products as a dietary supplement, in violation of California’s Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, California Health & Safety Code sections 109875 et. seq.; (2) is selling an “adulterated” product because caffeine is not generally recognized as safe (“GRAS”) due to the alleged lack of scientific consensus concerning the safety of the levels of caffeine in the Company’s products; and (3) is engaged in unfair and misleading business practices because its marketing (a) does not disclose the health risks that energy drinks pose for children and teens; (b) fails to warn against and promotes unsafe consumption; (c) implicitly promotes mixing of energy drinks with alcohol or drugs; and (d) is deceptive because it includes unsubstantiated claims about the purported special benefits of its “killer” ingredients and “energy blend.” The City Attorney seeks a declaration that the Company has engaged in unfair and unlawful business acts and practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; an injunction from performing or proposing to perform any acts in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; restitution; and civil penalties. On June 3, 2013, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District Court”). On July 3, 2013, the City Attorney filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. On September 18, 2013, the Northern District Court granted the City Attorney’s motion to remand the San Francisco Action back to state court.

On January 15, 2014, the Company filed a demurrer to and motion to strike allegations in the complaint in the San Francisco Action. The demurrer and motion to strike are currently scheduled for a hearing on March 4, 2014. The Company denies that it has violated the Unfair Competition Law or any other law and believes that the City Attorney’s claims and demands are preempted and unconstitutional, as alleged in the action the Company filed in the Central District Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. At this time, no evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or range of potential loss can be expressed.

In addition to the above matters, the Company has been named as a defendant in various false advertising putative class actions and in a private attorney general action. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants misleadingly labeled and advertised Monster Energy® brand products that allegedly were ineffective for the advertised benefits (including, but not limited to, an allegation that the products do not hydrate as advertised because they contain caffeine). The plaintiffs further allege that the Monster Energy® brand products at issue are unsafe because they contain one or more ingredients that allegedly could result in illness, injury or death. In connection with these product safety allegations, the plaintiffs claim that the product labels did not provide adequate warnings and/or that the Company did not include sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of its energy drink products (including, but not limited to, claims that certain ingredients, when consumed individually or in combination with other ingredients, could result in high blood pressure, palpitations, liver damage or other negative health effects and/or that the products themselves are unsafe). Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of state consumer protection statutes, including unfair competition and false advertising statutes, and for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. In their prayers for relief, the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory

and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and, in some cases, injunctive relief. The Company regards these cases and allegations as having no merit. Furthermore, the Company is subject to litigation from time to time in the normal course of business, including intellectual property litigation and claims from terminated distributors. Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of such litigation, based on the facts known to the Company, management believes that such litigation in the aggregate will likely not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.