“Barron’s Roundtable” panelists analyze how investors make bets in a “stealth bear market.”
Starbucks faces a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging the coffee giant deceptively markets eight protein drinks as “sugar-free,” despite the drinks containing natural sugar from milk.
The suit, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleges that Starbucks’ “sugar-free” protein drinks contain between 13 and 21 grams of sugar per serving of venti. The plaintiffs argue that the product names violate federal regulations governing “sugar-free” claims on labeling.
Starbucks disputes these allegations.
“We believe these claims to be without merit,” a Starbucks spokesperson said in a statement. “Starbucks has consistently and clearly provided information about its protein drinks, sugar-free options, customization choices and nutritional content in product ads, menus, marketing materials, on Starbucks.com and the Starbucks app, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”
CHICK-FIL-A EXCLUDES AI DRIVE-THRU ORDERS AS FAST-FOOD RIVALS EMBRACE TECHNOLOGY
People walk past a Starbucks coffee shop in Manhattan, New York on January 15, 2025. (Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images)
At the center of the debate is the distinction between total sugar and added sugar. The plaintiffs acknowledge that Starbucks provides nutritional information showing that the drinks contain sugar, but argue that the use of “sugar-free” in the product names is misleading.
“This case involves false and misleading product names. It is not about missing nutritional information,” the complaint states.
The sugar at issue is lactose naturally found in the milk used to make the drinks, according to the lawsuit. Figures cited in the complaint from Starbucks’ nutritional information show that venti versions contain between 13 and 21 grams of sugar.
A venti sugar-free caramel protein matcha contains 21 grams, while a sugar-free vanilla protein matcha contains 20 grams, according to the complaint. The lawsuit includes screenshots of Starbucks’ order pages showing these sugar amounts as well as the names of “sugar-free” products.
A sign adorned with the Starbucks logo hangs near the entrance to the Starbucks coffee shop in Aspen, Colorado. (Robert Alexandre/Getty Images)
Starbucks has distinguished between total sugar and added sugar in drink descriptions. According to the complaint, Starbucks described the products as containing “no added sugar” while also incorporating “Sugar Free” into their names.
The plaintiffs argue that the distinction does not meet federal requirements for a “sugar-free” claim.
The complaint cites Food and Drug Administration regulations that the plaintiffs say allow a “sugar-free” claim only when a food or beverage contains less than 0.5 grams of sugar per reference amount usually consumed and per labeled serving, among other requirements. The plaintiffs allege that Starbucks drinks exceed this threshold because of the presence of lactose in the milk used to make them.
| Teleprinter | Security | Last | Change | Change % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBUX | STARBUCKS CORP. | 94.43 | -0.28 | -0.30% |
The lawsuit also alleges that Starbucks fails to provide a calorie disclaimer that the plaintiffs say is required by FDA regulations when a “sugar-free” claim is made on a product that is not labeled low or reduced in calories. The complaint states that the eight drinks contain approximately 270 to 340 calories per serving of Venti.
The allegations have not been adjudicated and Starbucks denies any wrongdoing.
The lawsuit was filed by consumers Michael Walsh of California, Anne Legnini of New York and Elna Potter of Washington. They seek to represent a national class of customers who purchased the drinks, or distinct classes of consumers in California, New York and Washington.
The eight drinks in question are hot and iced vanilla and caramel protein lattes and protein matchas. Starbucks launched its protein drink line in September 2025 as the company sought to meet growing consumer demand for protein-enriched drinks.
CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO
The plaintiffs bring claims under the consumer protection and false advertising laws in Washington, California and New York, as well as claims for breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment. They are seeking damages, as well as an order prohibiting Starbucks from marketing drinks as “sugar-free” unless they meet applicable requirements.
Gn bussni
