A fruit drink...with no fruit?
It's got some Starbucks customers so mad that they're suing.
Starbucks has been in the news a lot lately.
The chain claims that its July announcement about the closing of stores is "just the beginning"
of other major changes coming to the brand.
But it's also been making headlines for employees' union efforts passing major milestones — the
company even tried to bring a case against Arizona union organizers in court.
Now, thanks to a recent lawsuit, it looks like the chain's legal troubles are far from
over.
The lawsuit is being brought against Starbucks by an angry customer in New York.
They allegedly noticed that there was more than one item on the Starbucks menu that wasn't
what it seemed and managed to get a group together to file a class-action lawsuit against
the brand.
In their suit, the customer alleges that several of the chain's Refresher drinks don't contain
the fruits that their names would imply.
For its part, a Starbucks spokesperson told Mashed,
"We are aware of the lawsuit.
The allegations in the complaint are inaccurate and without merit.
We look forward to defending ourselves against these claims."
If you love Starbucks Refreshers, you might be surprised to hear that many of the drinks
allegedly don't contain the fruits one might think they do, based on the beverage names.
A lawsuit against the company claims:
"[T]he Mango Dragonfruit and Mango Dragonfruit Lemonade Refreshers contain no mango, the
Pineapple Passionfruit and Pineapple Passionfruit Lemonade Refreshers contain no passionfruit,
and the Strawberry Acai and Strawberry Acai Lemonade Refreshers contain no acai."
"The fruits are a go!
Go fruits!"
If what this suit alleges is true, what exactly is in these drinks?
According to the Starbucks website, the drinks contain freeze-dried bits of fruit, such as
pineapple and strawberries.
The "Mango Dragonfruit Refreshers Base" used in both mango drinks lists water, sugar, and
white grape juice concentrate as the primary ingredients.
There's also an ingredient labeled "natural flavors" with no further detail as to where
these flavorings come from.
This list is almost identical to that for the pineapple Refreshers, with the exception
of beta-carotene to give the drinks their orangey-yellow color.
Starbucks' Strawberry Acai Base also contains water, sugar, white grape juice concentrate,
the vague "natural flavors," and an equally vague ingredient labeled "fruit and vegetable
juice."
Sadly for the popular chain, this isn't the first time customers have felt deceived by
what's in — or not in — their pricey drinks.
The chain faced a scandal a few years back when customers became angry upon realizing
that Starbucks' signature fall drink, the Pumpkin Spice Latte, didn't contain actual
pumpkin.
This was first revealed in 2015 by author Vani Hari in a post on her blog FoodBabe.
It took dozens of emails from Hari before Starbucks finally shared the complete list
of Pumpkin Spice Latte ingredients.
She discovered several details about the contents of the drink, including artificial caramel
coloring, a hefty dose of sugar, and vaguely-labeled "natural ingredients."
But the biggest surprise to Hari was the fact that the Pumpkin Spice Latte contained no
real pumpkin, and instead relied on a "pumpkin spice flavored sauce."
"Pumpkin spice latte!
High five it!"
News of the lack of pumpkin and the overall unhealthiness of the Starbucks' latte went
viral on social media … despite the fact that pureed winter squash is an unusual ingredient
for a coffee drink, and the latte is simply spiced the way you would spice a pumpkin pie.
Regardless, Starbucks bowed to the online criticism and announced that same year that
its Pumpkin Spice Lattes would no longer contain caramel coloring and would be made with a
little bit of real pumpkin puree mixed into the flavored syrup.
According to the lawsuit about the Refreshers not having real fruit, Starbucks is supposedly
in violation of a New York state law that's designed to protect consumers from false advertising
claims.
It's seen as a form of misrepresentation that may mislead customers and includes intentionally
omitting details that could affect the customer's purchasing decision.
Online, not everyone seemed sympathetic to the suit.
One twitter user joked:
"Wait until they find out that Girl Scout Cookies contain no Girl Scouts and baby back
ribs are actually pork."
But others seemed to understand what the big deal was, with another Twitter user writing,
"It cost me 6 bucks for a small strawberry/acai.
AND THERE WAS NO ACAI IN IT?"
Only time — and the law — will tell just how damaging these allegedly misleading drink
names will be to the Starbucks brand.