American coffee giant Starbucks was sued by consumers because there was no fruit in its juice drinks. Reuters reported on the 19th that the plaintiffs in this case are Joan Cominis from New York State and Jason McAllister from California. In August 2022, they alleged that some of Starbucks' fruit drinks did not contain the fruit ingredients mentioned in the drink names. For example, there was no mango in the mango drink and no passion fruit in the passion fruit juice. They believe that Starbucks' misleading name caused the drinks to be overpriced and violated consumer protection laws.
Starbucks argued in court that the drink names described flavors rather than ingredients, and that these flavors were described in detail on the drink menu. Reasonable consumers should not be confused and store employees could explain them clearly.
On the 18th of this month, a Manhattan district judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claims regarding Starbucks’ alleged fraud and improper profits, holding that there was no evidence that Starbucks intentionally deceived consumers. But the judge accepted nine other claims filed by the plaintiffs, all related to Starbucks misleading consumers. The judge said it was natural for consumers to be confused because other Starbucks products, such as iced matcha latte and honey citrus mint tea, do contain matcha, honey and mint as ingredients.
Starbucks said in its latest statement that the above accusations were "inaccurate and without merit" and said it would continue to defend itself.
Related articles: