Starbucks faces lawsuit as customers claim refreshers contain no fruit
The complaint was initally filed in August 2022
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A woman is suing Starbucks for âfalse and deceptive practicesâ over claims that the coffee companyâs iced, fruit-filled refresher beverage actually contains no fruit.
Joan Kominis from Queens, New York, filed a complaint in August 2022 after learning that Starbucksâ Strawberry Acai Lemonade Refresher contained no actual acai. Court documents filed in the southern district of New York claim that âunbeknownst to consumers, the Mango Dragon Fruit and Mango Dragon Fruit Lemonade Refreshers contain no mango, the Pineapple Passionfruit and Pineapple Passion Fruit Lemonade Refreshers contain no passionfruit, and the Strawberry AçaĂ and Strawberry AçaĂ Lemonade Refreshers contain no açaĂ.â
Kominis and her co-plaintiff, Jason McAllister of California, are seeking damages in excess of $5m. Starbucks has since called the allegations âinaccurateâ and âwithout meritâ.
On Tuesday 19 September, US District Judge John Cronan rejected Starbucksâ request to dismiss nine of the 11 claims in the class-action complaint because âa significant portion of reasonable consumersâ would assume that the beverages in question would contain the fruit in their names.
The plaintiffs have said the main ingredients in these beverages were water, grape juice concentrate, and sugar. They claim the refreshers âdiffer from other Starbucks productsâ in that the product doesnât contain items in their name.
âStarbucksâ hot chocolate contains cocoa, its matcha lattes contain matcha, and its honey mint tea contains honey and mint,â reads the complaint. While they noted that the refresher drinks do in fact contain freeze-dried pieces of strawberries, pineapple and dragon fruit, they claimed that Starbucks âdoes not affirmatively indicate anywhere which ingredients are and are not in the products.â
Starbucks had said that the fruits mentioned in the refreshers titles are meant to âdescribe the flavours as opposed to the ingredients.â
Judge Cronan disagreed, writing in his ruling: âNothing before the Court indicates that âmango,â âpassionfruit,â and âaçaĂâ are terms that typically are understood to represent a flavour without also representing that ingredient.â
In Kominisâ original filing, she claimed that she was going to buy a Strawberry AçaĂ refresher specifically for the açaĂ benefits. The suit stated that açaĂ berries and juice âare known to provide benefits to heart health, cognitive function, and contain anti-cancerous properties.â
âHad she known that the product did not contain açaĂ, she would not have purchased it, or would have paid significantly less for it,â the document read.
Kominis said that she and other consumers bought these menu items and âpaid a premium priceâ based on Starbucksâ naming of the refreshers, and would either not have purchased them or âpaid significantly less for themâ had they been aware they were missing one of the named fruits.
âThe allegations in the complaint are inaccurate and without merit,â a Starbucks spokesperson told Today. âWe look forward to defending ourselves against these claims.â
One claim of fraud and another for unjust enrichment were dismissed from the suit, but Starbucks will have to face the rest of the allegations.
The Independent has contacted a spokesperson for Starbucks for comment.
This is the second lawsuit an American food chain has faced in recent weeks. Earlier this month, Burger King was sued over claims that the company misled customers by making its Whopper burger appear larger on the menu than how it appears in reality.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments