Starbucks sued over sugar-free protein drinks
Three consumers say eight US drinks contain between 13 and 21 grams of sugar despite their name.
Starbucks is being sued in the United States for marketing eight protein drinks as sugar-free. The claimants say the drinks contain lactose and therefore do not meet the legal meaning of that designation; Starbucks calls the case groundless.
The proposed class action was filed in a federal court in Seattle. Three consumers from California, New York and Washington say Starbucks sells eight drinks under names such as Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Latte and Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha, even though the drinks do contain sugar, according to the complaint.
According to the complaint, the amounts range from 13 to 21 grams of sugar per large serving. The sugar is said to come mainly from the milk used in the protein drinks. Starbucks says it does not add sugar to the drinks and uses sugar-free syrups for flavour.
The case therefore centres on the difference between no added sugar and sugar-free. According to news agency AP, Starbucks lists both the Sugar-Free designation and the amount of sugar per drink on its US website. The claimants believe that combination can still mislead consumers.
According to Reuters, the claimants are relying on federal rules that restrict the term sugar-free to products containing no more than half a gram of sugar per 12-ounce reference serving. The complaint also alleges that Starbucks may not have correctly applied mandatory warnings about calories and weight management. These are legal claims by the claimants, not findings by the court.
Starbucks says it clearly publishes nutritional information, options and product descriptions. A spokesperson said Starbucks would vigorously defend the case. The court has not yet ruled on the substance of whether the product names are misleading.
For now, the case is limited to the US market and drinks from the protein product range. It does not concern an established health risk or a ban on the products. The legal outcome could, however, affect how chains use terms such as sugar-free, no added sugar and high-protein.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The lawsuit, the quantities mentioned and Starbucks' defence have been described by AP and Reuters. Legal claims have consistently been attributed to the complaint and have not been presented as proven violations.
- confirmed Three consumers have brought a federal case against Starbucks in Seattle. — AP and Reuters report the filing and the court involved. source
- confirmed The case concerns eight protein drinks described as sugar-free. — This is stated in both independent news reports. source
- confirmed According to the complaint, the drinks mentioned contain between 13 and 21 grams of sugar per large serving. — Reuters and AP report this range as part of the complaint. source
- confirmed Starbucks says the sugar comes from milk and that no sugar is added. — This is the defence attributed to Starbucks by AP and Reuters. source
- confirmed The court has not yet issued a ruling on the substance. — The reports describe a newly filed case and no judgment. source
Editor's note
It is certain that three consumers have brought a federal case against Starbucks and that, according to publicly available menu information, the drinks in question contain sugar. The court still has to assess whether the product names are legally misleading.Sources
- A lawsuit accuses Starbucks of mislabeling 8 sugar-free protein drinks — Associated Press
- Starbucks sued over sugar-free claims for protein beverages — Reuters via Investing.com
- Starbucks sued for allegedly mislabeling sugar-free protein drinks — ABC News
More on this in Dutch media
- De Telegraaf — „starbucks suiker”
- Trouw — „starbucks suiker”
- RTL Nieuws — „starbucks suiker”