Starbucks must now face a $5 million lawsuit filed against it over the fruit content of its popular Refresher fruit drinks, or lack thereof. A federal judge ruled that the complaint brought by the plaintiff was strong enough to suggest the possibility that an actual trial on the matter may very well bear fruit.
The lawsuit was brought by people who claim they found no actual natural juices as promised in Starbucks’ Mango Dragonfruit, Mango Dragonfruit Lemonade, Pineapple Passionfruit, Pineapple Passionfruit Lemonade, Strawberry Açai and Strawberry Açai Lemonade Refreshers.
Will you offer us a hand? Every gift, regardless of size, fuels our future.
Your critical contribution enables us to maintain our independence from shareholders or wealthy owners, allowing us to keep up reporting without bias. It means we can continue to make Jewish Business News available to everyone.
You can support us for as little as $1 via PayPal at office@jewishbusinessnews.com.
Thank you.
The plaintiffs stated in their suit that, “Starbucks has marketed the Products with the names of specific fruits, representing to its customers that the Products, which are supposed to be fruit-based beverages, contain those advertised fruits.”
But a Starbucks spokesperson told FOX Business, “The allegations in the complaint are inaccurate and without merit. “We look forward to defending ourselves against these claims.”
It was brought in August 2022 and is being heard by U.S. District Judge John Cronan in Manhattan U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.
Justice Cronan rejected Starbucks’ attempt to have the suit quashed saying, “a significant portion of reasonable consumers” would think that any drink with a specific fruit in its name would actually have a certain minimum content of said fruit.
Starbucks had argued that people do not expect to find real vanilla in products with that word in their names such as vanilla flavored coffee, ice cream, etc. So, said the company, it should not be expected to offer real fruit juice of the flavors mentioned in a drink’s name.
But the judge saw it differently saying, “Nothing before the court indicates that ‘mango,’ ‘passionfruit,’ and ‘açaí’ are terms that typically are understood to represent a flavor without also representing that ingredient.”
So, maybe the people suing Starbucks are not nutty as a fruit cake. Maybe Starbucks should settle the case as attempting to fight the allegation in court may very well be fruitless.
