Starbucks Prepares to Face Legal Battle Over Allegations of Misleading Customers with Some Refreshing Fruit Drinks Names Despite Lack of Real Fruit Ingredients
In Manhattan, American District Judge John Cronan has rejected Starbucks’ request to dismiss 9 out of 11 claims in a protracted class-action lawsuit related to a series of coffee chain’s refreshers. Starbucks’ refreshment drinks, such as Mango Dragonfruit, Pineapple Passionfruit, and Strawberry Acai, are at the core of the controversy.
Consumers argue that these drinks don’t actually contain any of the fruits highlighted in their titles. Instead, the listed primary ingredients were water, grape juice, and sugar, as reported by Reuters.
Jon Cominis of Astoria, New York, and Jason McAllister of Fairfield, California, are in charge of the case. They contend that Starbucks has unfairly benefited from premiumizing incorrectly titled beverage goods and from breaking state consumer protection laws.
At least $5 million in damages are sought in the action, which was started in August 2022.
Starbucks argues in defense of its position that the names of the drinks were chosen to more accurately reflect their flavor profiles than their ingredient listings.
The Seattle-based company also argued that no reasonable consumer would be misled by the nomenclature, as store employees could clarify any misconceptions.
However, Judge Cronan pointed out that unlike the term “vanilla,” which has been the subject of many similar cases, words like “mango,” “passionfruit,” and “acai” are generally understood not only as flavors but also as an indication of their presence. Thus, confusion could be inferred.
The judge also suggested that deception could be understood because Starbucks’ other products, such as Iced Matcha Green Tea Latte and Honey Citrus Mint Tea, list the ingredients in their titles.
Two of the original claims – fraud and unjust enrichment – were dismissed by the judge, citing a lack of evidence that Starbucks’ intentions were fraudulent.
Given the recent legal developments, Starbucks issued a statement in which they strongly contested the allegations put forth in the lawsuit. They firmly stated that these claims were unfounded and lacked substance. Moreover, the company made it clear that they are committed to mounting a robust defense of their position in a court of law. The plaintiff’s attorney, Robert Abiri, expressed pleasure with the judge’s decisions and a desire to continue representing the hypothetical class.