Starbucks Corp.’s line of fruity summer drinks aren’t as fruity as their names suggest, a New York woman alleges in a proposed class action lawsuit asking, “Where’s the acai?”
(Also read: US multinationals will pay for trips to employees who want to abort)
“Despite their names, and unbeknownst to consumers, Mango Dragonfruit and Mango Dragonfruit Lemonade Refreshers do not contain mangos, sodas Pineapple Passionfruit and Pineapple Passionfruit Lemonade Refreshers do not contain passion fruit, and Strawberry Acai and Strawberry Acai Lemonade Refreshers do not contain acai,” Joan Kominis said in the lawsuit filed Friday in federal court in Manhattan.
(It may interest you: Starbucks announces its withdrawal from the Russian market due to the invasion of Ukraine)
Kominis, who lives in Queens, does not say in her lawsuit how she determined the ingredients were missing. He claims that soft drinks are made primarily with water, concentrated grape juice, and sugar.
Supposed deception?
A Starbucks spokesman said the Seattle-based company has not been notified of the lawsuit and has no comment.
Kominis said he stumbled upon the alleged hoax when he bought the strawberry acai drink, only to discover that it did not contain acai, depriving her of the known health benefits of the fruit. The company’s website says the drink is “accented” by “notes” of acai.
According to the lawsuit, the names of the products constitute an “implied promise” about their ingredients, and Starbucks violated a New York law that prohibits deceptive practices and false advertising.
The plaintiff and other consumers purchased the products and paid a higher price based on reliance on the name of the products.
Kominis accused Starbucks of unjust enrichment, saying it charged for drinks as if they contained the advertised ingredients. High prices A large, or medium, mango and dragon fruit soda costs $5.25 at a store in midtown Manhattan.
“Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the products and paid a premium price based on Defendant’s reliance on the names of the products,” Kominis said.
“Had the plaintiff and other consumers been aware that the products were missing one of the named fruits, they would not have purchased the products or paid much less for them.”
Robert Abiri, the Los Angeles attorney who filed the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
Kominis’ lawsuit does not specify potential damages, but says the “amount in dispute” is more than $5 million.
BLOOMBERG
More world news
– Taiwan: China extends its military exercises on the island for one more day
– Cuba: serious fire in Matanzas already leaves one dead and 122 people injured
– Ukraine: the first ship loaded with cereals arrives in Turkey
#Starbucks #faces #class #action #lawsuit #fruit #drinks