The Starbucks underfilled latte lawsuit was a class action filed on March 16, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case was titled Siera Strumlauf, et al. v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 3:16-cv-01306 .
The plaintiffs alleged that Starbucks systematically underfilled its lattes, serving beverages that were up to 25% smaller than the advertised size. Specifically, they claimed that Starbucks used a standardized recipe that resulted in lattes being underfilled, thus shortchanging customers who expected to receive the full advertised volume (e.g., 16 ounces for a grande latte) . The lawsuit argued that this practice constituted false advertising and violated consumer protection laws.
The lawsuit attracted significant media attention. For example, NBC's Today Show conducted its own investigation, visiting several Starbucks locations and measuring the volume of grande lattes. Their findings indicated that none of the tested lattes met the advertised 16-ounce size after the foam settled, lending some support to the plaintiffs' claims . Starbucks, in response, argued that the foam is an integral part of the beverage and should be included in the total volume, and that some variation is expected due to the handcrafted nature of their drinks .
Initially, a federal judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed, finding that the plaintiffs had stated a plausible claim. However, in January 2018, the court ultimately dismissed the lawsuit. The judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Starbucks systematically cheated customers by underfilling lattes. The court accepted Starbucks' argument that the foam is part of the beverage and that reasonable consumers would expect some variation in handcrafted drinks .
There is no public record indicating that Starbucks made any changes to its latte preparation practices as a direct result of this lawsuit. Unlike some other consumer protection cases involving Starbucks, there was no settlement or admission of wrongdoing, and no compensation was awarded to consumers in this case.
The plaintiffs' claims were grounded in several consumer protection statutes, including:
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL): Prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices.
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA): Protects consumers against unfair and deceptive business practices.
False Advertising Law: Prohibits misleading or deceptive advertising practices .
The plaintiffs argued that Starbucks' advertising of specific beverage sizes was misleading, as the actual volume delivered was less than promised. They sought to represent a class of consumers who had purchased underfilled lattes, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
Starbucks' primary defense was that the foam is a standard and expected component of a latte, and that the advertised size includes both liquid and foam. They also argued that the handcrafted nature of their drinks means some variation is inevitable, and that reasonable consumers would not expect a precise measurement to the last ounce .
The court ultimately sided with Starbucks, finding that:
The foam is a customary and integral part of a latte, and thus should be included in the beverage's total volume.
Reasonable consumers would not be misled by minor variations in beverage volume, especially given the handcrafted nature of the drinks.
There was insufficient evidence to show that Starbucks had a systematic policy of underfilling lattes with the intent to deceive customers .
The case drew on established consumer protection law, including:
Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court: Established that consumers misled by false advertising have standing to sue, even if the product is not defective .
Vasquez v. Superior Court: Affirmed the right to pursue class actions under the CLRA .
Flores v. Southcoast Automotive Liquidators, Inc.: Clarified that consumers can seek remedies under multiple statutes .
However, the court found that the facts of the Starbucks case did not meet the threshold for actionable deception under these statutes.
The Starbucks case fits within a broader trend of consumer protection lawsuits in the food and beverage industry, often targeting alleged misrepresentations in product labeling, ingredient claims, or packaging sizes. Many such cases rely on state consumer protection laws and often hinge on what a "reasonable consumer" would expect .
For Consumers: The case underscores the challenge of proving systematic deception in cases where product characteristics (like foam in a latte) are subjective or variable.
For Businesses: The outcome reinforces the importance of clear communication about product characteristics and the need to align marketing with reasonable consumer expectations.
For Legal Practice: The case illustrates the high bar plaintiffs must meet to prove actionable deception under consumer protection statutes, especially when the product in question is inherently variable.
The Starbucks underfilled latte lawsuit was a high-profile class action that alleged systematic underfilling of lattes in violation of consumer protection laws. While the case was initially allowed to proceed, it was ultimately dismissed due to insufficient evidence of systematic deception and the court's acceptance that foam is part of a latte's advertised volume. The case highlights the complexities of consumer protection litigation in the food and beverage industry and the importance of aligning product marketing with reasonable consumer expectations .