"No Fruit in Fruit Drinks?"... Starbucks Faces 6.6 Billion Won Class Action Lawsuit

Starbucks Spokesperson: "Unfounded Claims"

Starbucks is facing a massive class-action lawsuit over the absence of actual fruit in beverages named after fruits.

On the 18th (local time), according to the US media Forbes, two plaintiffs from New York and California filed a lawsuit citing violations of consumer protection laws, claiming that "Starbucks' fruit drinks did not contain fruit." The beverages involved in the lawsuit include 'Mango Dragonfruit,' 'Pineapple Passionfruit,' and 'Strawberry Acai Lemonade Refresher.'

The plaintiffs pointed out that these drinks did not actually contain mango, passionfruit, or acai. They stated that they paid a premium price believing the drinks contained fruit.

In response, Starbucks argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed, claiming that the product names describe the flavor rather than the ingredients. They also explained that any consumer questions could have been sufficiently addressed by store employees.

[Image source=Pixabay]

However, the court sided with the plaintiffs. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York did not accept Starbucks' request to dismiss the lawsuit. The court stated, "Most ordinary consumers could be misled by Starbucks' menu names."

Judge John Cronan considered that since some Starbucks drink names are derived from ingredient names, consumers might reasonably believe that the fruit drinks contain the actual fruit. For example, 'Iced Matcha Latte' contains matcha, and 'Honey Citrus Mint Tea' actually includes honey and mint.

However, Judge Cronan did not find that Starbucks intended to deceive consumers or sought unfair profits. Previously, the plaintiffs argued that the product names constituted an 'implied promise' about the ingredients, violating New York state laws prohibiting consumer deception and false advertising. They also claimed Starbucks gained unfair profits by misrepresenting product ingredients.

The plaintiffs stated, "Consumers pay a high price based on the product names. If consumers had known that one of the fruits listed in the product name was absent, they would not have purchased the drink or would have paid less." The compensation amount claimed for the affected group was reported to be at least $5 million (approximately 6.6 billion KRW).

In response, a Starbucks spokesperson issued a statement saying, "The claims in the complaint are inaccurate and unfounded," adding, "We will defend ourselves against these allegations."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.