September 24th, 2019
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 of liquid with no ice and there are no allegations that Starbucks promised the drinks would contain a specific amount of liquid. September 2016: The
October 17th, 2018
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. NY.)
October 17th, 2018
In October 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Starbucks for allegedly falsely advertising its sour gummies as “apple, watermelon, tangerine and lemon-flavored candies” to make consumers believe they are flavored with natural ingredients when, according to plaintiffs, the candies contain artificial flavors. (Brown v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 18-cv-2286, S. D. CA.) For more
January 12th, 2018
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 filed an amended complaint adding another named plaintiff. The amended complaint makes the same allegations. March 2016: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Starbucks for
September 28th, 2017
Class-action complaint alleges “Doubleshot” drinks have less than two shots of espresso.
September 13th, 2017
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 caffeine than the amount contained in two shots of espresso (i.e., 150mg of caffeine). Click on the links below to see each complaint. Naimi et
November 29th, 2016
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 . (Crittenden et al v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 16-cv-5049, N. D. CA.) May 2016: A class-action lawsuit was
November 28th, 2016
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 granted Starbucks motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The judge concluded that a menu listing the size of an iced
September 1st, 2016
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 and cheddar breakfast sandwich are eligible to receive a 25 cent refund. Class members who used their Starbucks Rewards accounts will receive their refund automatically
August 2nd, 2016
February 2016: This action was voluntarily dismissed . The reasons have not been disclosed. March 2015: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Starbucks for allegedly misleadingly using ed packaging. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the company covers a portion of the bottle with a non-transparent label to make consumers think they are buying more than they
June 29th, 2016
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 fees award. To read the decision, click here. March 2015: After a judgment awarding $250 to the plaintiff and $6,767 to the plaintiff’s attorneys was
April 28th, 2016
Survey says: Don’t take this survey.
June 2nd, 2015
Consumers sour on milk after learning of additives in Starbucks coconut product.
July 26th, 2013
Starbucks advertised its Verismo at-home coffee system as making “coffeehouse quality lattes…” or “Lattes … made to cafe standard… ,” though presumably without acoustic folk-rock CDs and a coffee cup with “Sven” written on it after telling the barista your name is Steve. But looked into Starbucks’ claims after Kraft, which makes its own at-home
January 24th, 2013
Despite denying any wrongdoing, Starbucks has agreed to pay $1.7 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought against it for allegedly tacking a hidden fee onto certain purchases of bulk coffee beans. If you purchased less than a pound of scooped coffee beans between 2007 and 2011, you may be entitled to receive a refund.
September 19th, 2019
Just how many cups of coffee does this canister yield?
August 14th, 2019
If you take your coffee with a stick of butter, be wary of miracle health claims.
May 8th, 2019
Courts weigh in on legal term.
December 19th, 2018
Stocking stuffer alert: These “white chocolate” treats are allegedly missing key ingredients.
December 28th, 2016
Funny sketch or funny ad?