Starbucks Latte Class Action Will Continue with Fewer Claims

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.

A Starbucks class action lawsuit over underfilled lattes will continue, but with fewer claims and limitations on the available relief.

U.S. District Judge Thelton E. Henderson determined that plaintiffs Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles have established the necessary standing to bring a claim for damages against Starbucks, and that most of their other claims have been adequately pled.

However, the judge dismissed three of the plaintiffs’ claims, determining they had no standing to seek injunctive relief.

Starbucks had moved for dismissal last April. The company argued in part that because Strumlauf and Robles did not allege the particular lattes they themselves had purchased were underfilled, they did not have standing to sue.

Judge Henderson disagreed. The plaintiffs made three particular allegations about how Starbucks underfilled its lattes: by counting the foam on top the drink as part of the drink, by measuring out too little milk into the steaming pitchers, and by instructing baristas to “leav[e] at least 1/4 [inch] of space below the rim of the serving cup.” Judge Henderson said these allegations allow the court to reasonably infer that the plaintiffs’ particular lattes had been similarly underfilled.

The judge also allowed the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of express warranty, common law fraud, and violations of several California consumer protection laws.

While the plaintiffs did establish standing for claims for damages, Judge Henderson determined the plaintiffs have not established standing to claim injunctive relief. Since the plaintiffs now know – or at least believe – that Starbucks is underfilling its lattes, the judge said, they are no longer in danger of similar harm in the future.

The judge also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of implied merchantability. That claim would have required the plaintiffs to allege that Starbucks’ lattes were not just misrepresented but in fact were unfit for consumption.

The Starbucks class action lawsuit began in March 2016. Strumlauf and Robles alleged the underfilled lattes are not just an oversight but are the result of a purposeful decision Starbucks made in 2009 to reduce its costs for milk, one of its most expensive ingredients.

According to the plaintiffs, “Starbucks Lattes are uniformly underfilled pursuant to a standardized recipe. Tall Lattes are not 12 fluid ounces, Grande Lattes are not 16 fluid ounces, and Venti Lattes are not 20 fluid ounces. Starbucks cheats purchasers by providing less fluid ounces in their Lattes than represented. In fact, Starbucks Lattes are approximately 25% underfilled.”

Both Strumlauf and Robles allege they purchased Grande-sized lattes from Starbucks but would not have purchased them on the same terms if they had known the beverages were not actually 16-ounce drinks.

Plaintiffs’ counsel are L. Timothy Fisher, Julia A. Luster and Scott A. Bursor of Bursor & Fisher PA; Gerald Healy and John Hafemann of Military Justice Attorneys PLLC.

The Starbucks Underfilled 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 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 2: 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 3: 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.