Judge throws out case against Starbucks over liquid to ice ratio in its iced drinks

Plaintiff Alexander Forouzesh filed a complaint in May 2016, claiming that Starbucks defrauds consumers by “systematically underfilling”​ its iced beverages.  The complaint was meant to cover the “millions of consumers who purchased one or more of the cold drinks during the ten years preceding this complaint,”​ according to the court document.

Judge cites simple science​

U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson said that the plaintiff, Alexander Forouzesh, did not have a strong enough claim and that children could understand the concept of ice displacing the amount of liquid in a cup.

“If children have figured out that including ice in a cold beverage decreases the amount of liquid they will receive, the court has no difficulty concluding that a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into thinking that when they order an iced tea, that the drink they receive will include both ice and tea and that for a given size cup, some portion of the drink will be ice rather than whatever liquid beverage the consumer ordered,”​ Andersen stated in a court document.

Misleading menu descriptions​

Forouzesh also alleged that Starbucks knowingly misleads its consumers by advertising on its menu sizes of the “cold drinks” ​by fluid ounce, but that the customer receives roughly half as many ounces as indicated on the menu.

“Starbucks, as the manufacturer, distributor, and/or seller represented that 21 Starbucks' Cold Drinks contained ‘12 fluid ounces’ for a Tall, ‘16 fluid ounces." for a Grande, ‘24 fluid ounces’ for a Venti,”​ he wrote.

“In fact, Starbucks' representations about its cold drinks were false. Starbucks 25 cold drinks are under-filled. A Tall does not contain 12 fluid ounces, a Grande does not contain 24  fluid ounces, etc.”​

Andersen rebutted this argument by noting that the retailer does not explicitly advertise on its website or menu that the size of drink one orders will actually produce that number of fluid ounces of solely liquid. Meaning there is no distinction listed between the volume of ice and pure liquid in the beverage.

 *The case is Alexander Forouzesh v. Starbucks Corporation, case number 2:16-cv-03830 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.