Plaintiffs Fight Dismissal of Starbucks Latte Class Action

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

On Monday, plaintiffs urged a California federal judge not to dismiss a class action lawsuit that accuses Starbucks Corp. of uniformly underfilling its lattes by 25 percent.

“Plaintiffs allege facts that are simple, clear, and powerful,” they state. “Starbucks sells Lattes that are underfilled. When this basic fact is understood, Starbucks’ arguments for dismissal must be rejected.”

The Starbucks latte class action lawsuit was filed last month by plaintiffs Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles, who claim Starbucks made an intentional decision to underfill its lattes in 2009 in order to save money on milk.

“[Starbucks] does not even dispute that its Lattes are underfilled,” Strumlauf and Robles state in their motion. “Rather, Starbucks attempts to obfuscate these simple facts by arguing that the reasonable consumer would not be deceived or misled by its conduct.”

The plaintiffs argue that Starbucks’ assertion that reasonable consumers would not be deceived is inappropriate to bring forth in a motion to dismiss, as the court must evaluate the class action lawsuit as if all of the plaintiffs’ factual allegations are true.

Strumlauf and Robles also dispute Starbucks’ argument that they failed to meet the required pleading standards and failed to state breach of warranty claims. They further take issue with Starbucks’ assertion that their negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment claims fail. The plaintiffs assert that these claims are allowed in California.

In its motion to dismiss the underfilled latte class action lawsuit, Starbucks argued that the plaintiffs failed to allege that they suffered an economic injury. “But Plaintiffs clearly alleged that they purchased underfilled Lattes and would not have done so on the same terms if they had known that Starbucks underfills its Lattes,” the plaintiffs assert in their motion.

Strumlauf and Robles refer to the evidence they have gathered to support their assertions that Starbucks intentionally underfills its lattes. They state that their counsel purchased Starbucks lattes at different stores, in different states, in different sizes and different flavors, and found that the lattes were all underfilled by approximately 25 percent.

The plaintiffs’ counsel also reportedly obtained several standardized pitchers used by Starbucks baristas to make lattes and found that the “fill to” lines used to measure the steamed milk were “plainly set too low.”

Further, the plaintiffs’ attorneys found that Starbucks’ recipe for its Grande-sized lattes calls for baristas to fill the serving up to “1/4 inch below cup rim.” The milk foam added to the top cannot compensate for the empty space because milk foam is not counted toward the volume of the beverage.

“When food scientists – and weights and measures inspectors – measure a liquid with foam, the industry-standard procedure is to let the foam dissipate or eliminate the foam, then measure the resulting liquid,” the plaintiffs explain. “Under this analysis, milk foam cannot compensate for an otherwise underfilled Latte.”

The plaintiffs are represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Julia A. Luster and Scott A. Bursor of Bursor & Fisher PA and by Gerald Healy and John Hafemann of Military Justice Attorneys PLLC.

The Starbucks Latte Class Action Lawsuit is Siera Strumlauf, et al. v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 3:16-cv-01306, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On May 26, 2016, Starbucks filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all underfilled drinks class action lawsuits to Washington, arguing that it would be more convenient for depositions. 

UPDATE 2: On June 17, 2016, this Starbucks class action lawsuit over underfilled lattes will continue, but with fewer claims and limitations on the available relief.

UPDATE 3: On Aug. 5, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled that the class action lawsuits alleging Starbucks intentionally underfills lattes and other coffee drinks will not be merged into one centralized case.

UPDATE 4: On Oct. 17, 2017, the plaintiffs argued that the coffee company’s motion to dismiss the Starbucks class action lawsuit is premature because it was filed during the discovery phase, in which the plaintiffs are attempting to learn the standard recipe formulations for Starbucks mochas and lattes.

UPDATE 5: On Jan. 5, 2018, a judge ruled in favor of Starbucks, in response to a class action lawsuit alleging that the popular coffee chain underfills its lattes.