Starbucks ordered to court over allegations Refresher drinks lack fruit

Starbucks will have to face a consumer protection lawsuit alleging that its fruit Refresher drinks do not contain the fruit advertised, a federal judge decided on Monday.

The lawsuit, brought by Noan Kominis of New York and Jason McAllister of California, accused the coffee chain of failing to include fundamental ingredients in its line of Refresher drinks. Namely, they claimed that the Mango Dragonfruit, Mango Dragonfruit Lemonade, Pineapple Passionfruit, Pineapple Passionfruit Lemonade, Strawberry Açai and Strawberry Açai Lemonade Refreshers did not have mango, passion fruit or Açai in them.

They did not contest that the other advertised fruits including pineapple, strawberry and dragon fruit were present in the drinks.

The plaintiffs claimed in the suit that they paid a premium price for the drinks, which they would not have purchased had they been aware they were missing some of the named fruits. They alleged that the products are instead made primarily of water, grape juice concentrate and sugar, for which they would not have been willing to pay the same price.

The suit also pointed out that Starbucks generally names products based upon the ingredients inside, such as the matcha in the Iced Matcha Tea Latte and honey and mint in the Honey Citrus Mint Tea.

Starbucks said in a statement that the allegations were "inaccurate and without merit," and added, "we look forward to defending ourselves against these claims."

Wage goes up for CA fast food workers:California fast food workers will earn at least $20 per hour. How's that minimum wage compare?

Starbucks attempted to have the case dismissed, saying that the names of the drinks refer to their flavor and not necessarily the ingredients contained within. U.S. District Judge John Cronan denied this bid, dismissing two of the 11 complaint actions but allowing the other nine to move forward.

While Starbucks argued that menu boards advertising the products were not misleading and could be clarified by baristas, the judge determined that a "significant portion of reasonable consumers" would assume based on said advertisements that the drinks included all the fruits listed in the name.

One claim of fraud and another for unjust enrichment were dismissed from the suit, but Starbucks will have to face the rest of the allegations.

BK lawsuit moves forward:Burger King must face whopper of a lawsuit alleging burgers are too small, says judge

More consumer lawsuits

The lawsuit is the latest in a string of litigation against chain restaurants over their advertising.

Last month, Burger King failed a similar bid to dismiss a lawsuit which accused it of misrepresenting the size of Whopper burgers.

In July, a New York man sued Taco Bell for false advertising, claiming its Mexican Pizza had only about “half of the beef and bean filling that he expected.”

In March, a Chicago man sued Buffalo Wild Wings, saying the company’s “boneless wings” aren’t wings at all but actually cheaper chicken breast tenders. Buffalo Wild Wings has denied the allegations and is asking a judge to dismiss the case, saying that “boneless wings” wouldn’t mislead “reasonable consumers.”

McDonald’s, Burger King and Wendy’s were all sued last year over the size of their cheeseburgers.