
Starbucks Refreshers
Allegations: Beverages do not contain the fruits advertised in the product name
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 drink does not contain white chocolate, as defined by state and federal law. (Marten et al v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 18-cv-9201, S.D.N.Y.)
For more of TINA.org’s coverage of Starbucks, 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.