It’s absolutely about her being collateral damage.

If we weren’t living in a 24/7 internet/news world (say, even ~20 years ago), we wouldn’t have access to news articles about this kind of thing. The articles likely wouldn’t exist at all. The vast majority of consumers would have no idea that this girl died from this drink, and people who enjoy to consume it (heart condition or no), will continue putting themselves at risk. Panera would still sell this product, and the profit margin is massive. Why would they stop when literally nobody knows the drink killed a girl?

And this would keep happening until “the invisible hand” of the market corrects things, if it ever does. Because it only really could if enough people heard about the dangers of this beverage to literally put them out of business. And we’ve already established that these stories weren’t a common thing until recently.

How many people do you think would need to die for that happen?

This honestly isn’t even a great example, but it still works. Just look at any dangerous product that ruined or ended countless lives in the not so distant past, before the government was forced to step in to regulate (asbestos, thalidomide, lead, CFCs, etc etc). Note that all of those things would never have been outlawed/regulated if the government hadn’t stepped in. If we would have just sat back and allowed the free market to handle it, millions more would be dead, and there would still be an ever growing hole in the ozone layer.

All just collateral damage in the bullshit concept of free markets