Starbucks Sued Over "Sugar-Free" Protein Drinks That Pack as Much Sugar as a Candy Bar
Starbucks is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing the coffee chain of falsely advertising eight protein beverages as "sugar-free" when they allegedly contain 13 to 21 grams of sugar each — sugar that comes from lactose, the naturally occurring sugar in milk.
The suit was filed October 2 in federal court in Seattle by Hagens Berman, a firm specializing in class actions, on behalf of three consumers in California, New York, and Washington, with Sterlington PLLC as co-counsel. The drinks at issue are from Starbucks' protein line launched last September under its "Back to Starbucks" menu refresh: Sugar-Free Vanilla and Caramel Protein Lattes, Vanilla and Caramel Protein Matchas, plus iced versions of each.
The complaint's sharpest weapon is a federal regulation: beverages with more than 0.5 grams of sugar per 12-ounce serving may not be called "sugar-free." The plaintiffs say a 16-ounce Iced Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha contains 16 grams of sugar and the 20-ounce version 21 grams — compared with 11 grams in a single Reese's peanut butter cup. They also allege Starbucks failed to carry federally required disclaimers that the drinks are not low-calorie foods or intended for weight control, and accuse the company of capitalizing on the desire of 75 percent of Americans to cut sugar.
"Consumers avoid sugar for various reasons, whether that be general health, diabetes and blood glucose levels or other factors, and for many, a staunch mislabeling like this is significant," said Steve Berman, co-founder and managing partner of the Seattle-headquartered firm.
Starbucks disputes the allegations. "We believe these claims have no merit," the company told Reuters, adding that it intends to defend itself. The company says the sugar comes from the protein-boosted milk it uses, that it adds no sugar to the drinks, flavors them with sugar-free syrup, and has consistently published nutritional content through menus, marketing materials, its website, and app.
The food industry has been here before: dozens of recent cases have challenged "sugar-free" or "zero sugar" claims on products containing allulose, a sugar substitute. The complaint seeks unspecified damages for false advertising and violations of various state consumer protection laws. For now the case is only a proposed class action — whether a judge certifies it as one is the next hurdle.