The expert handling of a PR crisis has shifted dramatically from carefully constructed statements to fast, real-time engagement in a social-media landscape.
Where brands once relied on behind-the-scene damage control and formal press releases, today’s crisis unfold much quicker and in the public eye, often being shaped by online audiences before brands have a chance to respond. This has forced a change in strategy. Brands have needed to become more agile, culturally aware and transparent in communication.
That evolution has seen social media and humour increasingly being used as part of the crisis combat tool kit. Rather than sticking to corporate messaging, brands must now engage directly to the consumer, participate in meme culture, trends and online conversations in order to regain control of their own brand narrative. While this approach can humanise brands, it also introduces a new bout of risks now requiring brands to carefully balance relatability with credibility.
US-based protein bar brand, David, has recently found itself in the hot seat following a lawsuit alleging that its product contain more calories and fat that stated on nutrition labels. While the suit gained little traction initially, it has since escalated on TikTok.
Users have posted meme-like content, claiming to have been “Regina George-d” by the company further amplifying the public awareness and scepticism. If you’re unfamiliar with the reference, in the film Mean Girls, George (played by Rachel McAdams) is given low calorie food bars by another character, only for it to later be revealed the bars are, in fact, laden with calories.
The brand has disputed the claims and kept a low profile as the controversy initially unfolded now turning to a more active social media defence poking fun at the Mean Girls references.
@davidproteinDavid is 150 calories.♬ original sound – David Protein
They followed up a more detailed explanation, including input from a food scientist to support its position.
@davidproteinDavid is 150 calories.♬ original sound – David Protein
The TikTok community displayed a mixed response.
@nicoledeller called it a: “10/10 pr recovery”.
@coherent6 commented: “people are so easily shushed. no proof and everyone’s eating this up”.
@brimo.co said: “I had no idea you even existed before the controversy – but now I would absolutely buy your bars due to this video”.
But is this now the playbook every brand should be reaching for? The jury’s out.
Skye Lambley, the CEO of Publicis-owned comms agency, Herd MSL told B&T: “David have found themselves in a perfect storm. The brand is the target of a lawsuit based on independent testing which has created a meme-able critique referencing one of the most quoted movies of all time. This is where crisis and culture meets, and it can be tough to regain control of the narrative. The allegation is also highly shareable because it feeds into the idea that if something seems too good to be true, it usually is.
Australia may be less litigious than the US but there is still a lesson for food brands locally. With increasing transparency and scrutiny around nutrition in what we eat, driven in part by social media but also in part by independent reviews through apps like Yuka, and consumer groups like CHOICE, it’s more important for brands to be clear and confident on the science behind the label and quickly address misinformation in a way consumers can understand.”
Robyn Sefiani, president ANZ & reputational counsel, Sefiani, part of Clarity Global also told B&T: “The approach adopted by David generates visibility but falls short of building trust, credibility and lasting product confidence. Memes have captured attention effectively, yet they sidestep the fundamental consumer question which is: can I rely on David’s labelling promise? Humour in brand campaigns succeeds when fortified by irrefutable proof, but without proof, there is a risk for any scepticism to be amplified
“Effective crisis management succeeds when managed with speed, empathy, transparency and evidence. Prioritise a clear, disciplined approach. Ensure the CEO communicates quickly, acknowledging consumer concern regardless of fault. Commission independent audits immediately and explain the science accessibly through a dedicated brand update site. Maintain stakeholder discipline, delivering tailored and consistent narratives to consumers, regulators, and retailers alike. Finally, demonstrate higher ambition by treating scrutiny as an opportunity to strengthen labelling standards, positioning consumer trust as your enduring business foundation. ”
A similar situation unfolded in Australia in June of 2025 with Australian sunscreen brand. Disputes were raised over the accuracy of its SPF ratings emerging from an independent testing conducted by CHOICE. The testing found Ultra Violette advertising its product as containing higher SPF than it actually did. Online scrutiny escalated quickly with mass online discussions, videos and memes discussing the product and its newly revealed SPF revelations.
The brand adopted a multi-pronged approach: acknowledging the concerns, sharing more information on the methodology behind their SPF testing and commissioning another third-party verification to sustain their claim. One of the founders leveraged social media to engage directly with their consumers explaining the controversy and defending the product which they later pulled from shelves as it did not meet the SPF standard it claimed to.
@ultravioletteauI know this one’s long, but we want to make sure you have all the information you need. We understand that seeing Choice’s claims may have shaken your trust, and we’re here to reassure you, but please watch this through for a more in-depth explanation. We have our test (and re-test) results on our website in full. In this, we explain: how we responded when we heard Choice’s claims, how the tests could be so different, and the team and I are here to answer your questions. This is not the time to run away from our own brand, we take this seriously and we have a very strong, regulated market. We’re here to listen, to reassure you and to hear your concerns.♬ original sound – Ultra Violette Australian SPF
Sefiani examined this kind of brand response: “when 16 of 20 SPF 50+ products failed independent tests, prompting TGA recalls and fines after brands like Ultra Violette initially downplayed results before withdrawing Lean Screen from the market. Like VW’s earlier emissions claims scandal, resistance by the company prolonged brand damage and eroded, rather than restored trust.”
Both brands demonstrate how difficult is to navigate PR crisis in the era of social media. Crisis now move fast and let audiences shape the narrative. Brands are now required to respond transparently, swiftly and with real evidence, balancing engagement and humour with credibility. When handled efficiently with honesty and speed, brands will become better equip to address reputational risk and strength consumer trust.
