
Starbucks Refreshers
Allegations: Beverages do not contain the fruits advertised in the product name
September 2016: After the case was transferred to a California court, the named plaintiff agreed to become a named plaintiff in another case making the same allegations, Strumlauf et al v. Starbucks, and to dismiss this action When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled.. (Crittenden et al v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 16-cv-5049, N. D. CA.)
May 2016: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Starbucks (and amended in September 2016) alleging that its espresso beverages contain fewer fluid ounces per serving size than advertised. (Crittenden et al v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 16-cv-3496, S. D. NY.)
For more information about other class-action lawsuits filed against Starbucks and TINA.org’s coverage of the company, click here.
Allegations: Beverages do not contain the fruits advertised in the product name
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing products as “100% Arabica Coffee” when they contain added potassium
Allegations: Misleadingly representing that cocoa has been harvested following ethical and environmentally responsible standards
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing bagels as “Sprouted Grain” when they are made primarily with non-sprouted grains
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing products as healthy, safe, and high quality without disclosing that they may contain harmful bacteria
Allegations: Coffee products contain fewer servings than advertised
Allegations: Falsely advertising that the flavor comes from vanilla when the ingredients list shows that the flavor comes from unspecified “Natural Flavor”
Lawsuit tells a different story about the treatment of workers on Starbucks’ source farms.
See how you stack up.
Courts weigh in on legal term.
Stocking stuffer alert: These “white chocolate” treats are allegedly missing key ingredients.
Class-action complaint alleges “Doubleshot” drinks have less than two shots of espresso.