She’s thirsty for justice.
A Queens woman suing Starbucks for “false and deceptive practices” can proceed with litigation after the company tried to have the case dismissed.
Joan Kominis filed her suit in August of last year, outraged after learning that Starbucks’ Strawberry Acai Lemonade Refresher contained no actual acai.
The disgruntled customer and co-plaintiff, Jason McAllister of California, are seeking damages in excess of $5 million, with their fruit suit also pertaining to a number of other refresher drinks sold by Starbucks.
Court docs filed by the plaintiffs proclaim that “unbeknownst to consumers, the Mango Dragonfruit and Mango Dragonfruit Lemonade Refreshers contain no mango, the Pineapple Passionfruit and Pineapple Passionfruit Lemonade Refreshers contain no passionfruit, and the Strawberry Acai and Strawberry Acai Lemonade Refreshers contain no acai.”
The coffee giant fired back, seeking to have the case thrown out.
However, on Tuesday, US District Judge John Cronan rejected that request, declaring: “The general consuming public could reasonably believe that the products contain the missing fruits.”
New York’s famed “vigilante” food label lawyer Spencer Sheehan told The Post that more companies can expect to be hit with litigation for deceptive descriptors of their products.
“When companies imply a product contains a certain type of ingredient and it doesn’t, a lawsuit is something they should expect,” he declared.
Starbucks contended that the fruits mentioned in the names of the refreshers were merely supposed to “describe the flavors as opposed to the ingredients” of the beverages.
However, Cronan disagreed, writing in his ruling: “Nothing before the Court indicates that ‘mango,’ ‘passionfruit,’ and ‘açaí’ are terms that typically are understood to represent a flavor without also representing that ingredient.”
In the original filing, Kominis claimed she treated herself to a refresher in late 2021, believing she would be consuming some healthy acai.
The suit states that acai berries and juice “are known to provide benefits to heart health, cognitive function, and contain anti-cancerous properties.”
Instead, the refresher was “primarily comprised of water, grape juice concentrate, and sugar,” the lawsuit states.
“Had she known that the product did not contain acai, she would not have purchased it, or would have paid significantly less for it,” the document further contends.
Refreshers cost up to $5, with the suit stating that customers are willing to pay a premium because they believe the ingredients provide nutritional benefits.
“The allegations in the complaint are inaccurate and without merit,” a Starbucks spokesperson said in a statement following this week’s ruling. “We look forward to defending ourselves against these claims.”
The Post attempted to contact Kominis for comment. After calling her last listed phone number, a woman who answered said “wrong number” before hanging up.
Starbucks has offered refreshers as a cold drink option at its locations for over a decade. It operates more than 37,200 stores worldwide, according to the company.
The company’s stock dropped about 1.5% Tuesday and has declined 5.5% since the start of the year, according to Fox Business.
The suit comes amid growing scrutiny from consumers about the deceptive labelings on fruit and drink packaging in American supermarkets.
Spencer Sheehan, the lawyer who spoke to The Post about the Starbucks case on Thursday, has made his name in recent years for suing food giants over misleading claims made on their products.
Last year, Sheehan’s law firm reached a $2.6 million settlement with Blue Diamond over a proposed federal class action about the company’s Almond Breeze vanilla-flavored milk and yogurt products.
He also hit headlines for launching a $5 million class action lawsuit against Kellogg’s in 2021.
At that time, he claimed their Whole Grain Frosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts contained an inadequate amount of actual strawberries.
This story originally appeared on NYPost
