Starbucks is currently dealing with a proposed class-action lawsuit that accuses the coffee company of misleadingly branding eight of its protein drinks as “Sugar-Free” even though they contain natural sugars from milk.
The lawsuit, filed on Friday in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, claims that these “Sugar-Free” protein drinks have between 13 and 21 grams of sugar in a venti serving.
The plaintiffs argue that the product names do not comply with federal regulations relating to “sugar-free” labeling.
Starbucks, however, has denied these allegations.
According to a spokesperson for the company, “We believe these claims have no merit. 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. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”
The core of the issue revolves around the difference between total sugar and added sugar. While the plaintiffs admit that Starbucks does provide nutritional details showing the presence of sugar, they argue that including “Sugar-Free” in the product names is deceptive.
The complaint states, “This case is about false and misleading product names. It is not about missing nutritional information.”
The sugar in question is lactose, which occurs naturally in the milk used to create these beverages. Documentation presented in the lawsuit indicates that venti sizes have sugar content ranging from 13 to 21 grams.
For instance, a venti Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha has 21 grams of sugar, whereas a Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Matcha contains 20 grams, as highlighted in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs have included screenshots of Starbucks’ ordering pages where these sugar amounts are displayed alongside the “Sugar-Free” labels.
Starbucks has made a distinction between total sugar and added sugar in describing its beverages. The complaint notes that Starbucks claims these drinks have “no added sugar,” while also promoting them under the “Sugar-Free” label.
The plaintiffs contend that this distinction fails to meet federal requirements for a “sugar-free” claim.
The complaint references FDA standards stating that a “sugar-free” claim is only valid if a product has less than 0.5 grams of sugar per typical serving size, among other criteria.
The lawsuit argues that the drinks exceed this limit due to the lactose from the milk used.
Moreover, the plaintiffs assert that Starbucks does not provide a calorie disclaimer, which they believe is mandated by FDA regulations when a “sugar-free” claim is made on a product that is not labeled as low or reduced-calorie. They state that the eight beverages in question contain about 270 to 340 calories per venti serving.
These allegations have yet to be resolved, and Starbucks maintains that they have done nothing wrong.
The lawsuit was initiated by consumers Michael Walsh from California, Anne Legnini from New York, and Elna Potter from Washington.
They are aiming to represent a nationwide class of customers who have bought these beverages or, alternatively, separate classes in California, New York, and Washington.
The eight drinks involved are hot and iced Sugar-Free Vanilla and Caramel Protein Lattes, as well as Protein Matchas. Starbucks launched this protein drink range in September 2025, aiming to meet the rising consumer interest in protein-fortified beverages.
The plaintiffs seek damages and restitution, along with an injunction preventing Starbucks from labeling drinks as “Sugar-Free” unless they comply with the relevant requirements.
