Starbucks Sued Over 'Sugar-Free' Protein Drinks Containing Significant Sugar

Starbucks is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that its "sugar-free" protein drinks actually contain substantial amounts of sugar, with claims ranging from 13 to 21 grams per serving. The suit, filed in federal court in Seattle, contends that the coffee giant's marketing and labeling practices for these beverages are false, deceptive, and unlawful.

According to the complaint, the labeling violates federal regulations, which prohibit marketing beverages as "sugar-free" if they contain more than 0.5 grams of sugar per 12-ounce serving. The lawsuit highlights specific drinks, such as a 16-ounce “sugar-free caramel protein matcha” with 16 grams of sugar and a 20-ounce “sugar-free vanilla protein latte” reportedly containing 16 grams of sugar. These amounts are noted to be higher than the sugar content in a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup or a glazed Krispy Kreme donut.

Steve Berman, co-founder of the law firm representing the plaintiffs, stated that consumers avoid sugar for various health reasons, including diabetes management, and that such mislabeling is significant. He added that beverages with high sugar content are comparable to "drinking a candy bar."

A Starbucks spokesperson denied the allegations, asserting that the company has consistently provided clear information about its protein beverages, including their sugar-free options, customization choices, and nutritional content. The company stated its intention to vigorously defend itself against the claims.

The core of the dispute appears to hinge on Starbucks' explanation that the sugar present in the drinks comes from lactose, a naturally occurring sugar found in the milk and whey protein isolate used. Starbucks claims it does not add sugar to these beverages, using only sugar-free syrup for flavoring. The company's website lists these drinks under an "no added sugar options" section, suggesting that the "sugar-free" designation refers to the absence of added sugars, rather than the total sugar content.

This distinction has sparked debate online, with some users arguing that the label implies "no added sugar" rather than being entirely sugar-free, especially since milk naturally contains sugar. Others contend that the marketing is still misleading, particularly for consumers managing conditions like diabetes.

Registered dietitian and certified athletic trainer Dana Angelo White offered a different perspective, telling The Post that Starbucks is not deceiving consumers. She explained that while milk contains natural sugars, this sugar is accompanied by beneficial nutrients like calcium, vitamin D, and protein, making it nutritionally different from the added sugars in candy. White also noted that the protein content in the drinks helps slow down digestion.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for customers who purchased the protein beverages and requests that Starbucks be ordered to cease labeling the drinks as "sugar-free" if they contain sugar.