Starbucks Faces Lawsuit Over Allegedly Misleading ‘Sugar-Free’ Labeling
When ordering a drink labeled “sugar-free” from Starbucks, you might expect it to be free of sugar. However, a recent U.S. class-action lawsuit alleges that Starbucks falsely marketed eight protein beverages as “sugar-free” when they actually contain between 13 and 21 grams of sugar per venti-size serving due to the naturally occurring sugar in milk.
Filed in a Seattle federal court, the lawsuit accuses Starbucks of taking advantage of the protein trend and customers’ nutritional preferences by misleadingly labeling their drinks as “Sugar-Free.” The lawsuit argues that by using this label, Starbucks makes verifiable claims about the products that consumers rely on when making purchasing decisions.
For instance, a venti Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha reportedly contains about 21 grams of sugar, equivalent to five teaspoons of sugar, nearly as much as a standard Kit Kat bar. In response, Starbucks refuted the claims, stating that they have consistently provided accurate information about their beverages and intend to defend themselves vigorously.
The lawsuit lists eight beverages, including Sugar-free vanilla protein latte and Sugar-free caramel protein matcha, available on Starbucks Canada and U.S. websites. Despite being listed under “no added sugar options,” the drinks are titled as “sugar-free,” which has sparked controversy.
While the drinks contain milk’s natural sugars, such as lactose, Starbucks continues to label them as “sugar-free,” prompting concerns about misleading consumers. Both U.S. and Canadian laws have specific regulations regarding sugar-free labeling, requiring products to contain less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving.
The lawsuit seeks damages for false advertising and violations of consumer protection laws and aims to be certified as a class action. It was filed on behalf of consumers in California, New York, and Washington who purchased Starbucks’ sugar-free protein drinks. Steve Berman, a managing partner of the firm behind the lawsuit, emphasized the importance of accurate labeling, especially for those avoiding sugar due to health reasons.
