Advertising Law Blog

Coffee seller’s motion to dismiss class action denied by court

In a recent legal battle, Starbucks became the center of a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs who are alleging deceptive advertising practices related to beverage and food items sold in their stores. The case, combined with the court’s recent ruling denying Starbucks’ motion to dismiss, raises questions about the transparency of product labeling and the expectations of consumers when it comes to the accuracy of product names.

The lawsuit, pending in the federal district court for Southern District of New York, revolves around Starbucks’ product names for some of its popular offerings. For example, drinks like “Mango Dragonfruit Refresher” and others have come under scrutiny, with the plaintiffs arguing that these names are deceptive because they suggest the presence of certain ingredients that aren’t actually included in the beverages.

The plaintiffs have brought claims against Starbucks for violations of New York General Business Law (NYGBL) and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). They also allege breaches of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud.

In response to the lawsuit, Starbucks attempted to have the case dismissed. They argued that the product names accurately describe the flavors of the beverages, not the ingredients. According to Starbucks, consumers can always ask about ingredients from Starbucks employees if they have any concerns about allergens or specific ingredients. The court, however, did not find Starbucks’ arguments to be convincing, and it denied the motion to dismiss.

The court’s decision hinged on several key points. First, the distinction between the term “vanilla” used as a flavor and as an ingredient does not apply universally. While “vanilla” often represents both a flavor and an ingredient, fruit flavors like “mango” or “passionfruit” typically refer to the actual ingredients in the product. This distinction raised questions about whether consumers might reasonably expect the fruit names to be actually present among the ingredients.

A significant point of reference in the court's decision was another Southern District of New York ruling in a lawsuit against Whole Foods that involved honey graham crackers. In that case, the court determined that consumers could reasonably expect the product names to represent the predominant ingredients, and “honey” was considered both a flavor and a sweetening ingredient. This reasoning was applied to the Starbucks case, said Judge John Cronan, who ruled that consumers might reasonably expect the fruit names to reflect actual ingredients in the beverages.

As for Starbucks argument that any consumer confusion could be resolved by asking Starbucks employees about the product ingredients, the court found this argument lacking, because it assumed facts regarding employees’ knowledge of ingredients. The court emphasized that consumers should not be expected to consult nutritional labels to correct misleading information on product packaging.

In summary, the court concluded that a significant portion of reasonable consumers could be misled by the product names. As a result, the court denied Starbucks’ motion to dismiss several claims, including those related to NYGBL, CLRA, FAL and UCL. The court also allowed the claims of breach of express warranty to proceed.

Takeaway: This ongoing legal battle highlights the importance of accurate representation of ingredients in consumer products. It serves as a reminder to companies to ensure that their product names and descriptions align with the actual contents of the products they sell.