Starbucks sued for allegedly mislabeling ‘sugar-free’ protein drinks

Starbucks is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging the coffee giant misleadingly markets eight protein beverages as “Sugar-Free” despite the drinks containing naturally occurring sugar from milk.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleges Starbucks’ “Sugar-Free” protein drinks contain between 13 and 21 grams of sugar per venti serving. The plaintiffs contend the product names violate federal regulations governing “sugar-free” labeling claims.

Starbucks disputes the allegations.

“We believe these claims have no merit,” a Starbucks spokesperson said in a statement. “Starbucks has consistently and clearly provided information about its protein beverages, sugar-free options, customization choices and nutritional content across product announcements, menus, marketing materials, Starbucks.com and the Starbucks app, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”

CHICK-FIL-A RULES OUT AI DRIVE-THRU ORDERING AS FAST-FOOD RIVALS EMBRACE TECHNOLOGY

At the center of the dispute is the distinction between total sugar and added sugar. The plaintiffs acknowledge that Starbucks provides nutritional information showing the beverages contain sugar, but argue that using “Sugar-Free” in the product names is misleading.

“This case is about false and misleading product names. It is not about missing nutritional information,” the complaint states.

The sugar at issue is lactose naturally present in the milk used to make the beverages, according to the lawsuit. Figures cited in the complaint from Starbucks’ nutrition information show 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’ ordering pages showing those sugar amounts alongside the “Sugar-Free” product names.

Starbucks has distinguished between total sugar and added sugar in descriptions of the beverages. According to the complaint, Starbucks has described the products as containing “no added sugar” while also incorporating “Sugar-Free” into their names.

The plaintiffs argue that distinction does not satisfy federal requirements for a “sugar free” claim.

The complaint cites Food and Drug Administration regulations that plaintiffs say permit a “sugar free” claim only when a food or beverage contains less than 0.5 grams of sugar per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving, among other requirements. The plaintiffs allege Starbucks’ drinks exceed that threshold because of the lactose in the milk used to make them.

The lawsuit also alleges Starbucks fails to provide a calorie disclaimer that plaintiffs contend is required under FDA regulations when a “sugar free” claim is made on a product that is not labeled low or reduced calorie. The complaint says the eight beverages contain roughly 270 to 340 calories per venti serving.

The allegations have not been adjudicated, and Starbucks denies any wrongdoing.

The lawsuit was brought by consumers Michael Walsh of California, Anne Legnini of New York and Elna Potter of Washington. They are seeking to represent a nationwide class of customers who purchased the beverages, or alternatively separate classes of consumers in California, New York and Washington.

The eight beverages at issue are hot and iced Sugar-Free Vanilla and Caramel Protein Lattes and Protein Matchas. Starbucks launched its protein beverage lineup in September 2025 as the company sought to tap growing consumer demand for protein-enhanced drinks.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

The plaintiffs are pursuing claims under consumer protection and false advertising laws in Washington, California and New York, along with claims for breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment. They are seeking damages and restitution as well as an order barring Starbucks from marketing beverages as “Sugar-Free” unless they meet the applicable requirements.