
News
Share
Published 19:11 19 Sept 2023 BST
Updated 19:11 19 Sept 2023 BST

Starbucks have been ordered by a federal judge to address a lawsuit which claims their fruit brand drinks don't contain any fruit.
The coffee company initially attempted to have nine of the 11 lawsuit claims dismissed however a judge has since argued that "a significant portion of reasonable consumers" would expect their drinks to contain the fruit mentioned in the drink's name.
Two of the complainants, Joan Kominis and Jason McAllister, highlighted how the names of particular Refresher drinks compared to their actual ingredients.
Kominis and McAllister complained that Starbucks' Mango Dragonfruit, Mango Dragonfruit Lemonade, Pineapple Passionfruit, Pineapple Passionfruit Lemonade, Strawberry Açai and Strawberry Açai Lemonade Refreshers did not contain mango, passion fruit or açai.
In the lawsuit, the pair claim that the main ingredients of the drinks were water, grape juice concentrate, and sugar.
They argue that the names are thus misleading, cause them to be overcharged, and allegedly violate their states' consumer protection laws.
Starbucks have argued the name of the drink refers to the flavour as opposed to the ingredients.
They also claim that reasonable consumers would not be confused and baristas could "sufficiently dispel" any confusion.
Manhattan District Judge John Cronan, however, has said: "Nothing before the court indicates ‘mango’, ‘passionfruit,’ and 'açai' are terms that typically are understood to represent a flavor without also representing that ingredient."
The judge also argued that some consumers could expect the Refresher drinks to contain the fruit mentioned in their title as other Starbucks products, such as the Ice Matcha Tea Latte contains matcha, and the Honey Citrus Mint Tea contains both honey and mint.
Out of 11 claims against Starbucks in total, Judge Cronan dismissed two. For one of the claims dismissed, the judge said that there was no proof to suggest that Starbucks had intended to defraud customers. The second dismissed claim was for the strategy being an unjust enrichment claim.
Starbucks have since issued a statement on the lawsuit saying that they look forward to defending themselves.
Related links:
The summer Britain realised climate change was real – and has consequences
Even the most staunch deniers have melted under the heat The scene across the nation in the last few days has felt apocalyptic – the United Kingdom is on fire, homes are burning, infrastructure is crumbling and people are dying from the heat. It is a scene which experts have been warning us about for […]
News
16h
Builders unearth €9m gold hoard sealed inside a Belgian cellar wall
Talk about striking gold Builders renovating a house in Belgium have discovered a gold hoard reportedly worth around €9m (£7.6m) sealed into the walls of its cellar. The construction workers found the stash of gold bars and coins while drilling to lay new sewage pipes at the property in East Flanders earlier this week, according […]
News
17h
News
Man spends night on ‘deadliest island in UK’ uninhabited for almost a century
News