Starbucks Faces Lawsuit Over Misleading “Sugar-Free” Labeling of Protein Beverages
When you order a pumpkin spice latte or caramel macchiato from Starbucks, you anticipate a sugary treat. But what about drinks labeled “sugar-free”? A U.S. class-action lawsuit alleges that Starbucks falsely marketed eight protein beverages as “sugar-free,” despite containing 13 to 21 grams of sugar per venti serving due to natural sugars in milk.
The lawsuit filed in a Seattle federal court accuses Starbucks of taking advantage of the protein trend and customer nutritional preferences. By branding these beverages as “Sugar-Free,” the lawsuit claims Starbucks misleads consumers who rely on such labels when making purchasing decisions.
For instance, a venti Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha contains about 21 grams of sugar, equivalent to five teaspoons, almost as much sugar as a standard Kit Kat bar. Starbucks refutes the lawsuit’s allegations, stating they have consistently provided information on their protein beverages, sugar-free options, and nutritional content.
The lawsuit questions whether Starbucks’ drinks are truly sugar-free and if the labeling is deceptive, impacting consumers in both the U.S. and Canada. The lawsuit outlines eight drinks labeled as sugar-free, such as vanilla protein latte and caramel protein matcha, available on both Starbucks’ U.S. and Canada websites under “protein beverages.”
Despite the lawsuit’s claims, each beverage contains varying amounts of sugar, ranging from 13 to 21 grams per venti serving. While the sugar comes from milk, naturally occurring lactose, Starbucks labels these drinks as “sugar-free,” which the lawsuit deems misleading.
In the U.S., federal law prohibits labeling beverages containing over 0.5 grams of sugar per 12-ounce serving as “sugar-free,” even if the sugar is from milk. Similarly, Canadian regulations mandate that products labeled as sugar-free must contain less than 0.5 grams of sugar per specified serving.
The lawsuit seeks damages for false advertising and violations of consumer protection laws, aiming to have the case certified as a class action. It highlights the importance of accurate labeling for consumers, especially those with health concerns like diabetes who actively avoid sugar.
Starbucks’ handling of the “sugar-free” labeling discrepancy will be closely watched as the lawsuit unfolds.
