Starbucks Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Selling Fruit-Named Drinks without Actual Fruit

Starbucks Faces Class Action Lawsuit over Fruit Name Drinks

In a recent development, Starbucks finds itself entangled in a class action lawsuit, accused of selling drinks with fruit names that do not actually contain any fruit. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Starbucks’ request to dismiss the case, stating that the average consumer would reasonably expect these drinks to contain real fruit.

Last August, two plaintiffs from New York and California raised a complaint against Starbucks, invoking multiple consumer protection laws. The beverages in question, namely ‘Mango Dragonfruit,’ ‘Pineapple Passion Fruit,’ and ‘Strawberry Acai Lemonade Refresher,’ were alleged to lack the fruits they are named after, resulting in a claim for damages. The compensation sought by the victims is estimated to be at least $5 million.

Starbucks, on its part, argued for the dismissal of the lawsuit, contending that the product names merely describe the taste and not the actual ingredients of the drinks. Additionally, the company suggested that any consumer queries could be effectively resolved by store employees.

However, Judge John Cronan rejected Starbucks’ arguments, pointing out that given the use of ingredient names in other Starbucks drinks, it was reasonable for consumers to assume that the fruit-named beverages would contain real fruit. For instance, the ‘Iced Matcha Latte’ does contain matcha, while the ‘Honey Citrus Mint Tea’ includes honey and mint as ingredients.

Nevertheless, Judge Cronan did not find any evidence to suggest that Starbucks intentionally deceived consumers or gained unfair advantage from their product names.

Starbucks, now compelled to face the lawsuit, firmly denies the allegations made against them, labeling them as “false and unjustified.” The company has vowed to defend itself against these claims.

The outcome of this legal battle will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications, not only for Starbucks but also for the wider food and beverage industry. Among the issues at stake is the extent to which product names must reflect the actual ingredients, ensuring transparency and preventing any potential consumer confusion.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult with legal professionals for guidance on specific cases.


▲ Starbucks logo
A class action was brought against Starbucks on the grounds that some of the drinks it sells have fruit names but do not actually contain fruit.

According to Reuters, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York did not accept Starbucks’ request to dismiss the lawsuit on the 18th local time, saying that most reasonable consumers would have thought the drink contained real fruit .

Last August, two plaintiffs from New York and California filed a complaint against Starbucks regarding multiple consumer protection laws because ‘Mango Dragonfruit’, ‘Pineapple Passion Fruit’, and ‘Strawberry Acai Lemonade Refresher’ did not contain mango, passion really. Fruit, or acai. A lawsuit was filed alleging infringement.

The amount of compensation for the victims they were claiming was said to be at least $5 million (about 6.6 billion won).

Starbucks argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed, arguing that the product name describes the taste, not the ingredients of the drink.

He also explained that consumer questions related to this could be adequately resolved through store employees.

However, Judge John Cronan ruled that given that some Starbucks drinks are named after ingredients, consumers may think the fruit drinks also contain fruit.

For example, ‘Iced Matcha Latte’ actually contains matcha, and ‘Honey Citrus Mint Tea’ actually contains honey and mint.

However, Judge Cronan did not believe that Starbucks was trying to deceive consumers or take an unfair advantage.

A spokesperson for Starbucks, which was unable to avoid the lawsuit because of this court decision, said the allegations in the complaint were “false and unjustified” and “we will begin to defend against these allegations.”

#Starbucks #ClassAction

Copyright@ KWANGJU BROADCASTING COMPANY. all rights reserved.

#mango #Mango #Dragonfruit #drink…US #Starbucks #faces #class #action #lawsuit


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.