Starbucks Is Facing a Class-Action Lawsuit Over Its Fruit Refresher Drinks

Earlier this year, the biggest controversy involving Starbucks’ Refreshers line of fruit-and-juice drinks was a policy change requiring baristas to charge customers an extra dollar for any Refresher ordered with no water. But a judge has just given the go-ahead to a lawsuit alleging that six of the dozen Refreshers on the Starbucks menu don’t actually contain the fruits that are promised — or at least referenced — in their names. 

In the lawsuit, which was originally filed in August 2022, plaintiffs Joan Kominis and Jason McAllister said that they ordered a Strawberry Açaí Lemonade Refresher and a Strawberry Açaí Refresher, respectively, and they were both distressed to learn that the drinks did not contain any actual açaí. In their legal filing, they also allege that the two Mango Dragonfruit-based Refreshers don’t include any mango and the two Pineapple Passionfruit Refreshers are passionfruit-free. Instead, the drinks are a blend of the other named fruits, along with “water, grape juice concentrate, and sugar.” 

The plaintiffs also state that had they known they weren’t getting all the fruits listed in the drinks’ names, they either wouldn’t have ordered them, or they would’ve “paid significantly less for them.” (Paid less? Ma’am, have you been to a Starbucks?) “These missing fruit juices are important to consumers because they are premium ingredients, and consumers value them over the less nutritious and cheaper grape juice concentrate found in the Products,” the legal filing continues. 

They do acknowledge that many of Starbucks “rightfully” live up to their names, adding that the coffee chain’s hot chocolate does contain cocoa, its matcha lattes are made with real matcha, and its honey mint tea contains both honey and mint. But by failing to include any açaí, mango, or passionfruit in those Refreshers, the plaintiffs say that those product names are flat-out deceiving Starbucks’ customers. 

Starbucks tried to have this lawsuit dismissed last September, arguing that the names of its Refreshers “accurately describe the flavors, as opposed to the ingredients of the products.” The company also said that if customers were confused or had questions, they could get all the fruit-related facts from its baristas. U.S. District Judge John Cronan disagreed, and has allowed nine of the 11 claims in the lawsuit to go forward. (He did dismiss two claims: one that alleged that Starbucks was intentionally defrauding its customers, and an unjust enrichment claim that he said was repetitive.) 

“[The] Court ultimately determines that a significant portion of reasonable consumers could find it misleading,” Judge Cronin wrote in his opinion, which was released last week. “Unlike in some cases, no information in the name or advertising for the Products affirmatively informs the consumer whether a fruit name indicates a flavor or ingredient.”

The two plaintiffs have alleged damages in excess of $5 million. In a statement to Reuters, Starbucks decried their allegations as “inaccurate and without merit,” adding that the company “looked forward to defending ourselves against these claims.” 

Starbucks introduced its Refreshers drinks in 2012, calling them as a “global breakthrough beverage innovation that delivers a distinctly new take on thirst-quenching refreshment while providing a natural boost of energy from green coffee extract and real fruit juice.” The Refreshers, along with other cold drinks, have become an essential part of Starbucks’ revenue; during a Q4 earnings call last November, then-interim CEO Howard Schultz told investors that cold coffee beverages accounted for 76% of total beverage sales in its U.S. stores. 

So help us, if we learn that the Gingerbread Latte doesn’t contain the limbs of an actual Gingerbread man, we are going to KICK OFF.