① Sued for not having fruit in fruit drinks
Starbucks is facing a class-action lawsuit in the United States over its fruit drinks, with consumers alleging that there’s no actual fruit in the beverages. The controversy revolves around Starbucks’ Refreshers series, one of their iced drink menu items.
The product names include fruit names such as “Mango Dragonfruit,” “Pineapple Passionfruit,” and “Strawberry Acai Lemonade Refresher.” However, these drinks don’t contain the fruits mentioned in their names. Last August, two plaintiffs from New York and California filed a class-action lawsuit against Starbucks, claiming that the company violated consumer protection laws across several states and demanding compensation of $4.9 million.
Starbucks contends that these product names are meant to describe the flavor, not the actual ingredients, and thus, the lawsuit should be dismissed.
Furthermore, Starbucks explained that store employees could have adequately addressed consumer concerns related to this issue. Starbucks stated that their “Iced Matcha Latte” contains matcha, and their “Honey Citrus Mint Tea” does contain honey and mint.
However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected Starbucks’ request to dismiss the lawsuit, reasoning that most reasonable consumers would expect the drinks to contain actual fruit, given the fruit names on the labels. Judge John Cronan considered that Starbucks derives some drink names from ingredient names, leading consumers to believe the drinks contain those ingredients. Nevertheless, the judge did not find evidence that Starbucks intentionally deceived consumers or sought unfair gains.
A Starbucks spokesperson argued that the claims in the lawsuit lacked merit and were inaccurate and stated, “We will defend against these claims.”
② Hot Water and Ice Issues Also Sparked Lawsuits
This is not the first time someone has hit Starbucks with a lawsuit. In 2016, Starbucks faced a lawsuit in the United States for allegedly over-icing its iced coffee and shortchanging customers. Stacy Pincus, an Illinois resident, brought the lawsuit worth approximately $560 million, claiming that the amount represented the portion of damages consumers incurred over the past decade.
Pincus alleged that Starbucks intentionally added too much ice to its drinks to reduce the amount of coffee or other beverages served. She also emphasized that Starbucks used larger cups to fit more ice, intending to maximize profits. Pincus argued that in the case of iced beverages, nearly half of the drink is made up of ice, depriving consumers of half of the liquid they paid for. Starbucks sizes its drinks as Tall (12 oz/340 mL), Grande (16 oz/454 mL), Venti (24 oz/680 mL), and Trenta (30 oz/850 mL).
In response, Starbucks countered that its iced beverages are made with ice, and it’s obvious to consumers that ice is a crucial ingredient.
Starbucks faced legal trouble related to hot water as well. In 2015, a customer from Oregon, Julia Garcia, sued Starbucks for $15 million in damages, claiming that she suffered burns from hot water provided by the coffee giant. Similarly, in the same year, a police officer from North Carolina sued Starbucks for approximately $85.4 million for the same reason but lost the case.
In 2019, another customer who suffered burns from hot water sought around $50 million in medical expenses and compensation for physical and psychological damages. The customer claimed that when ordering a cup of coffee and a cup of hot water at Starbucks in 2017, a Starbucks employee did not properly secure the lid on the cup of hot water, resulting in the hot liquid spilling into the customer’s boot, causing severe burns that required skin grafts.
③ Lawsuit Over Racial Discrimination
Starbucks has also faced lawsuits related to racial discrimination. In 2018, Shannon Phillips, the former regional manager overseeing parts of the eastern United States for Starbucks, sued the company and was awarded approximately $32.7 billion in compensation.
Two African-American men visited a Starbucks store in Philadelphia’s Rittenhouse Square. They were sitting in the store without making any purchases when one of them asked an employee if he could use the restroom. The employee asked them to leave the store, and when the two men protested, the employee called the police. Subsequently, authorities arrested the two men on charges of trespassing. As the controversy escalated even after the men’s release, Starbucks issued a public apology.
Following the incident, Starbucks took disciplinary action against some employees, citing discriminatory behavior. Phillips, who received instructions from her superiors to discipline a white manager overseeing a nearby store, argued that there were no consequences for the African-American manager in charge of the Rittenhouse Square store where the incident occurred.
Phillips claimed that Starbucks fired her immediately after she refused to discipline the white manager, alleging the company was trying to cover up the controversy. Starbucks countered by stating that her termination was due to her failure to effectively manage the situation and show proper leadership during the incident.
Despite Starbucks’ defense, the court ruled in favor of Shannon Phillips, awarding her substantial compensation for her claims.
By. Kim Minjae (minjaaie33@mememedia.co.kr)
Most Commented