Sorry, barista, but there's no mango in my mango drink: Starbucks, the world's largest coffee chain (with more than 35,80 stores in about <> countries), is set to stand trial in the United States for misleading consumers and lack of truth in advertising.
According to a class-action lawsuit approved Monday in New York, Starbucks is accused of not containing all the fruits mentioned in their names, whose frozen fruit drinks from the Refreshers series, which boast refreshing and tempting names like "mango pitaya lemonade," "passion fruit pineapple lemonade," "acai strawberry lemonade" and more, do not contain all the fruits mentioned in their names.
More specifically, although the drinks have been shown to contain pineapple, strawberry and pitaya ingredients, for example, there is no trace of natural mango, acai and passionflower.
A branch of Starbucks, photo: AP.
John Kronen, the judge handling the lawsuit filed last year, rejected Starbucks' motion to cancel it, saying that "a significant proportion of consumers would expect their drinks to contain all the fruit mentioned by name." Moreover, the plaintiffs, Joan Cominis of New York and Jason McAllister of California, complain that the main ingredients in the disputed beverages are actually water, grape juice concentrate and sugar, and that Starbucks has given the drinks misleading names in order to charge premium prices to consumers who believe they are purchasing high-quality, fruit-rich products.
Therefore, the plaintiffs allege, Starbucks violated consumer protection laws in their countries and must therefore pay them at least $5 million in damages. Cominis, for that matter, clarified that she would never have paid between four and six dollars for a Repercher drink if she had not known that it did not contain all the fruit listed in its name.
Starbucks' frozen fruit drinks, photo: PR Abroad
In its defense, Starbucks argued that it does not describe the ingredients of the drinks in its advertisements — only their flavors. The chain also emphasized that baristas working at its branches can prevent any confusion and answer consumer questions that require more information. Judge Kronen was not impressed by the line of defense. At the same time, he dismissed one of the counts of the lawsuit, according to which it was fraud on the part of the chain (i.e., that charges of violation of consumer protection laws remain in place). In a press release, Starbucks said, "The allegations in the complaint are inaccurate and unjustified. We look forward to defending ourselves against these allegations." The trial is expected to begin soon.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us