Starbucks Underfilled Drinks Class Action Lawsuits Will Not Be Merged

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.

The class action lawsuits alleging that Starbucks intentionally underfills lattes and other coffee drinks will not be merged into one centralized case, ruled the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML).

In May of this year, Starbucks sought to consolidate the various class actions, including allegations that the “fill-lines” on various pitchers and other drink making devices do not correlate to the 12, 16 and 20 ounce cups the popular coffee chain sells its drinks in. Other allegations include the amount of ice baristas are instructed to use in frozen drinks.

Specifically, plaintiffs in California alleged that the standard recipe Starbucks requires its baristas to use results in espresso based drinks that will overfill the cups the chain serves drinks in.

A class action plaintiff in Illinois alleged that Starbucks’ frozen beverages are half filled with ice, resulting in customers receiving less than advertised on the menu. A plaintiff in New York alleged in her class action lawsuit that that the coffee maker does not allow baristas to fill cups to the brim, shortchanging customers on expensive ounces of their caffeinated beverages.

According to the JPML’s ruling, the various class action lawsuits lack complexity warranting centralization. Additionally, the JPML pointed out that because a limited number of attorneys and actions are involved, cooperation between the various parties and courts should mitigate any duplication of discovery and minimize the risk of inconsistent rulings.

“Where only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate,” wrote the JPML in their ruling. “Moving defendant has failed to do so here,” they concluded.

The JPML also noted that the class action lawsuits concern different claims; underfilling based on standardized Starbucks recipes and underfilling based on the addition of ice to beverages. According to the JPML ruling, the legal theories of liability will be different for these claims, making centralization of the class actions inappropriate.

“These factual dissimilarities likely will result in discovery, pretrial motions, and class certification issues that are not shared across the beverage categories,” noted the JPML in their ruling.

The JPML also stated that coordination between the parties to the class actions should be successful because Starbucks is the only defendant in the cases; “Starbucks, the sole defendant in this litigation, is well-positioned to ensure the successful coordination of any overlapping discovery,” wrote the JPML.

Plaintiff Forouzesh is represented by Justin Farahi and Raymond M. Collins of Farahi Law Firm APC.

Strumlauf and Robles are represented by L. Timothy Fisher and Scott Bursor of Bursor & Fisher PA and Gerald Healy and John Hafemann of Military Justice Attorneys PLLC.

Crittenden is represented by Brittany Weiner and Murray Friedman of IMBESI Law PC.

Pincus is represented by Steven A. Hart, Benjamin M. Shrader and Robert J. McLaughlin of Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge LLC.

The JPML case concerning the Starbucks Underfilled Drinks Class Action Lawsuits is In re: Starbucks Corporation Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 2725, before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

The Starbucks Underfilled Drinks Class Action Lawsuits are Alexander Forouzesh v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. BC62157, in Los Angeles Superior Court; Pincus v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-04705, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; 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; and Brittany Crittenden v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-03496, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

UPDATE: On Aug. 19, 2016, a California federal judge dismissed Alexander Forouzesh’s class action lawsuit that Starbucks misled customers about the size of its iced drinks because it lists their sizes as the total liquid volume of drink and ice, not just the beverage itself.

UPDATE 2: On Aug. 25, 2016, just days after escaping a similar claim in California, Starbucks sought the dismissal of Pincus v. Starbucks Corp. in Illinois federal court.

UPDATE 3: On March 27, 2017, Alexander Forouzesh filed an appeal of the dismissal with the Ninth Circuit arguing that he had established a claim for breach of express warranty. Forouzesh argued that the case should be heard by a jury.

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.