A recent lawsuit filed in a Seattle federal court accuses Starbucks of falsely advertising 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. The lawsuit alleges that Starbucks aimed to capitalize on the protein trend and customer preferences.
Starbucks responded, stating that they believe the claims in the lawsuit have no merit and that they have consistently provided clear information about their beverages, including sugar-free options and nutritional content. The controversy raises questions about the accuracy of the “sugar-free” labeling and whether it is misleading to consumers.
The lawsuit identifies specific drinks, such as sugar-free vanilla protein latte and sugar-free caramel protein matcha, listed as sugar-free on both Starbucks’ U.S. and Canada websites. Despite being categorized as “no added sugar options,” these beverages are labeled as “sugar-free,” leading to confusion among consumers.
Although the sugar in these drinks comes from natural sources like milk, the lawsuit argues that labeling them as “sugar-free” is misleading. According to U.S. federal law, beverages with more than 0.5 grams of sugar per 12-ounce serving cannot be labeled as “sugar-free.” Similarly, Canadian regulations require products labeled as sugar-free to contain less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving.
The lawsuit seeks damages for false advertising and violations of consumer protection laws. It also aims to be certified as a class action lawsuit and demands a trial by jury. The controversy highlights the importance of accurate labeling and transparency in the food and beverage industry, especially concerning products marketed as “sugar-free.”