A lawsuit accuses Starbucks of mislabeling 8 ‘sugar-free’ protein drinks
Advertisement
Read this article for free:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Digital Subscription
One year of digital access for only $205*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*First annual payment billed as $205.00 + GST for one year. This annual subscription will automatically renew at $233.00 + GST every 52 weeks (10% off the regular annual price of $259.35). Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Add Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only an additional
$1 for the first 4 weeks*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*Your next Brandon Sun subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $17.95 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $24.95 plus GST every four weeks.
Read unlimited articles for free today:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
Starbucks is facing a consumer lawsuit over claims that the protein drinks labeled “sugar-free” on its cafe menus may actually contain more sugar than a Reese’s peanut butter cup.
The federal lawsuit filed late Friday in Seattle alleges that eight protein beverages Starbucks sells in the U.S. contain varying amounts of sugar even though the company lists them as sugarless.
On Monday, the menu on Starbucks’ U.S. website listed a 16-ounce (0.5-liter) Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha with 16 grams of sugar and a 20-ounce (0.6-liter) version of the same drink with 21 grams of sugar. By comparison, one Reese’s cup has 11 grams of sugar.
Hagens Berman, a law firm that specializes in class action cases, filed the suit on behalf of three individual consumers who bought Starbucks’ sugar-free protein drinks in California, New York and Washington.
“Consumers avoid sugar for various reasons, whether that be general health, diabetes and blood glucose levels or other factors, and for many, a staunch mislabeling like this is significant,” said Steve Berman, a co-founder and managing partner of the Seattle-headquartered firm.
The plaintiffs contend that Starbucks’ naming and marketing of sugar-free products is “false, deceptive and unlawful” and that the company violated federal labeling regulations.
Seattle-based Starbucks said the sugar in its protein drinks comes from the protein-boosted milk it uses. The company said it doesn’t add sugar to the drinks and it uses sugar-free syrup for flavoring.
On Starbucks’ website Monday, the drinks were marketed as “sugar-free,” but the company also clearly stated the amount of sugar in each beverage and that they were made without added sugar.
“We believe these claims have no merit,” a Starbucks spokesperson said Monday. “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.”
Starbucks introduced its protein drinks in September 2025 to meet consumer demand for functional beverages and catch up to rivals like Dutch Bros, which launched protein-enhanced coffee drinks in 2024.
Dutch Bros also offers a lower-sugar version of its caramel-flavored Hopscotch Protein Latte, but it’s advertised as the Hopscotch Zero Sugar Added Protein Latte. The 16-ounce (0.5-liter) iced version has 7 grams of sugar and 11 grams of protein. By comparison, a 16-ounce (0.5-liter) iced Starbucks Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Latte has 9 grams of sugar and 29 grams of protein.
The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of U.S. consumers who bought the drinks. It also wants the court to order Starbucks to stop using the label “sugar-free” on products that contain sugar.
