Starbucks class action lawsuit overview:
- Who: Three consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Starbucks Corp.
- Why: The plaintiffs claim Starbucks’ “Sugar-Free” protein beverages contain 13 to 21 grams of sugar.
- Where: The Starbucks class action lawsuit was filed in Washington federal court.
A new class action lawsuit filed on Oct. 2 claims Starbucks names and markets eight protein beverages as “Sugar-Free,” even though they contain substantial amounts of sugar.
Plaintiffs Michael Walsh, Anne Legnini and Elna Potter claim the sugar comes from milk, which contains lactose, a naturally occurring sugar.
The plaintiffs argue that under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, a beverage may be called “sugar free” only if it contains less than 0.5 grams of sugar per reference amount customarily consumed — a standard serving size set by regulators — and per labeled serving.
The class action lawsuit further states that the FDA has classified lactose as a sugar since at least 1993, and milk is the first or second ingredient in every drink.
“No reasonable consumer would understand a beverage named ‘Sugar-Free’ to contain 13 to 21 grams of sugar per serving,” the lawsuit says.
The plaintiffs say they believed the “Sugar-Free” name of the Starbucks protein drinks meant the beverages contained no sugar. They claim they would not have bought the protein drinks or would have paid substantially less for them had they known that fact.
They want to represent a nationwide class of all persons in the United States who purchased one or more of the drinks for personal, family or household use from launch through the date of class certification. They also seek California, New York and Washington subclasses.
Starbucks protein drinks lack required calorie disclaimer, lawsuit claims
The Starbucks class action lawsuit claims the company omits an FDA-required calorie disclaimer. Consumers believe “sugar free” drinks are likely to have reduced calories. For that reason, the term must be paired with a statement such as “not a low calorie food” unless the product is labeled low or reduced calorie.
The lawsuit claims the drinks range from approximately 270 to 340 calories per venti serving.
The plaintiffs point to the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Franco v. Chobani, which held that allulose is a sugar under the “sugar-free” rule, even though FDA regulations do not name it specifically. They argue lactose is an even clearer case because the regulation expressly lists it as a sugar.
The plaintiffs claim Starbucks violated consumer protection laws in Washington, California and New York, breached an implied warranty and was unjustly enriched. They demand a jury trial and seek injunctive relief, restitution and damages.
The company believes the claims have no merit and will “vigorously defend” itself, a Starbucks spokesperson told Law360.
Earlier this year, Starbucks faced a lawsuit claiming it misled consumers about the ethical sourcing of its coffee products and the undisclosed presence of volatile organic compounds.
Have you ever bought any of the Starbucks protein drinks? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiffs are represented by Steve W. Berman and Shelby R. Smith of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Jennifer Kraus-Czeisler, Todd McClelland and Christopher Hurld of Sterlington PLLC.
The Starbucks class action lawsuit is Walsh, et al. v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-03745, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
