Starbucks Refreshers
Allegations: Beverages do not contain the fruits advertised in the product name
Schleyer et al. v. Starbucks Corp.
22-cv-10932, S.D.N.Y.
(Dec. 2022)
Starbucks Sprouted Grain Bagel
Misleadingly marketing bagels as “Sprouted Grain” when they are made primarily with non-sprouted grains
Pending
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 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”
November 2020: A federal judge dismissed all of the claims When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled. concluding that the plaintiffs failed to allege that Starbucks…
September 2019: This case was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled. for undisclosed reasons after a federal judge…
In February 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Starbucks alleging that it misleads consumers by making them believe that large (or Venti-sized) espresso beverages contain more espresso and caffeine…
March 2018: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case finding that no reasonable consumer would think a 12-ounce iced drink is 12 ounces…
In October 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Starbucks for allegedly deceptively advertising that its White Chocolate Doubleshot Energy Drink contains white chocolate when, according to the complaint, the…
January 2018: A federal judge granted summary judgment in this case concluding that plaintiffs failed to show that lattes contain less than the amount promised on menus. September 2016: Plaintiffs…
Two class-action lawsuits were filed against Starbucks for allegedly falsely advertising its Doubleshot® Espresso products as having two shots of espresso when, according to plaintiffs, the drinks contain significantly less…
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…
November 2016: A federal judge denied plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint because the motion did not include any new material allegations or argument. October 2016: A federal judge…
August 2016: A state judge preliminarily approved a settlement of this action. According to the settlement terms, customers who purchased a reduced fat turkey bacon breakfast sandwich or a sausage…
February 2016: This action was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.. The reasons have not been disclosed. March 2015: A class-action lawsuit was…
May 2016: The Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal of the District Court’s denial of class certification and affirmed both the decision to dismiss breach of warranty claims and the attorney’s…
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.