Starbucks Class Action Says Gummies Are Artificially Flavored

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 alleges that the popular coffee store deceives customers into believing that their gummy snack packs are made with “all-natural” flavors as opposed to artificial flavoring.

The gummy snacks available at Starbucks are reportedly advertised as containing “apple, watermelon, tangerine and lemon-flavored candies” without any mention of artificial flavoring.

However, plaintiff Sandra Brown claims that the candies contain fumaric acid, a “synthetic flavoring chemical mixture,” which creates the snack’s sourness and the taste of the advertised flavors.

“Because consumers prefer naturally-flavored food products over products with artificial flavors, and will pay more for natural products, [Starbucks] intentionally conceals the artificial flavor from consumers,” the Starbucks class action lawsuit argues.

California law requires companies to disclose on the front and back of packaging if their products contain artificial flavoring. Brown claims that the fumaric acid creating flavors in the gummies is certainly artificial and does not occur naturally.

“The fumaric acid is not naturally-occurring but is in fact manufactured in petrochemical plants from benzene or butane — components of gasoline and lighter fluid, respectively — through a series of chemical reactions, some of which involve highly toxic chemical precursors and byproducts,” the Starbucks gummy candy class action claims.

According to the Starbucks class action, neither the front nor back labels on the Starbuck’s gummies disclose that the product contains artificial flavoring. Brown argues that the label must include prominent disclosures about artificial flavoring reinforcing “characterizing flavors.”

“If any characterizing flavor is not created exclusively by the named flavor ingredient, the product’s front label must state that the product’s flavor was simulated or reinforced with either or both natural or artificial flavorings,” the Starbucks class action claims.

Brown alleges that Starbucks’ actions violate California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law and constitutes fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of express and implied warranties.

One of the attorneys representing Brown in the Starbucks candy class action says that consumers are beginning to expect and demand truthful, appropriate labeling on products. This labeling reportedly allows them to make healthier choices by knowing when items contain artificial or synthetic ingredients.

“Consumers have come to appreciate corporations that are socially responsible and care about the health and well being of [their] customers,” Brown’s counsel said in a statement. “Failing to label products that contain potentially harmful synthetic ingredients in accordance with California state and federal food labeling laws is unconscionable and must be stopped.”

Brown seeks to represent a Class of consumers who purchased the Starbucks gummies since Jan. 1, 2012. She also seeks to represent a subclass of California consumers who purchased the Starbucks gummies since Jan. 1, 2012.

The Starbucks gummies class action lawsuit seeks punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Brown is represented by Ronald M. Marron and Michael T. Houchin of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

The Starbucks “All Natural” Gummies Class Action Lawsuit is Sandra Brown v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-02286, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.