Starbucks Lawsuit Claims ‘Sugar-Free’ Protein Beverages Contain Substantial Amounts of Sugar

Starbucks faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the ubiquitous coffee shop chain has falsely touted certain protein beverages as “Sugar-Free,” even though the drinks contain between 13 and 21 grams of sugar per venti-size serving.

The 46-page Starbucks lawsuit alleges that the company’s use of “Sugar-Free” as a descriptor in the product names for eight varieties of protein lattes and matchas, launched in September 2025, is false, misleading and unlawful, given that federal law prohibits a product from being called sugar free when it contains more than 0.5 grams of sugar per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving.

The filing also alleges that Starbucks has failed to include requisite disclaimers regarding the calorie content of the protein drinks, as consumers reasonably believe that a beverage advertised as “sugar-free” is also likely a low-calorie food.

According to the complaint, the Starbucks drinks at issue all contain milk, which contains lactose, a naturally occurring sugar, as the first- or second-most predominant ingredient. As a result, the Starbucks protein beverages contain anywhere from roughly 13 to more than 25 times the amount of sugar (based on a venti serving) the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows for truly sugar-free drinks, the case states.

“The 21 grams of sugar contained in a venti Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha is roughly equal to five teaspoons of sugar,” the suit says. “This is almost as much total sugar as is contained in a standard Kit Kat bar.”

The lawsuit charges that Starbucks’ use of “Sugar-Free” in the official names for the drinks at issue is a deliberate attempt to capitalize on consumers’ preference for protein drinks that contain reduced or no sugar.

Consumers paid a price premium for drinks that they reasonably believed were free from sugar and would not have purchased beverages, or would have paid less for them, had they known they contained significant amounts of sugar from lactose, the case summarizes.

“The sugar content of a beverage is a material fact to reasonable consumers, especially the health-conscious and fitness-oriented, whom Starbucks is currently targeting with new protein beverage options,” the lawsuit contends.

Starbucks lawsuit says FDA regulations classify lactose as a sugar

Referenced in the lawsuit is a July 2026 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Franco v. Chobani, which held that the monosaccharide allulose is a sugar for purposes of the FDA’s sugar-free rule. Per the complaint, although allulose is not among the substances specifically mentioned in the FDA’s food labeling rules for nutrition facts panels, lactose is included in the FDA’s definition of “total sugars,” which the filing argues makes lactose’s regulatory and scientific status as a sugar “even clearer.”

Further, the suit states that Starbucks’ own nutrition information confirms that the supposedly sugar-free drinks contain sugar, although consumers, the case says, would have to actively seek out those details, which are not clearly displayed in physical stores, on online order pages, or in third-party delivery apps, such as DoorDash, Uber Eats and Grubhub.

“The allegations in this subsection support a prosaic proposition: Starbucks cannot defend the false and misleading names of the Sugar-Free Products by claiming that a consumer who went looking beyond these representations could have found the truth elsewhere,” the filing reads.

Per the case, Starbucks has at its disposal several “accurate and lawful” ways to describe the protein drinks at issue and could have used language such as “no added sugar” or “without added sugar,” subject to certain conditions, to better describe the beverages. Although the ostensibly more accurate disclaimers are included in product descriptions, the “Sugar-Free” statement in the beverages’ names misleadingly indicates to consumers that the drinks contain no sugar at all, the filing alleges.

FDA mandates calorie disclaimer for sugar-free products, class action suit says

The lawsuit goes on to relay that, under FDA rules, a food or beverage can be labeled “Sugar-Free” only if the descriptor is accompanied by a statement such as “low calorie” when applicable, or alternatively, a statement such as “not a reduced calorie food.” Per the case, the FDA emphasized the importance of such disclaimers in a 2007 letter to food manufacturers and distributors, given that consumers generally believe products without sugar are low in calories or contain significantly fewer calories than comparable products that contain sugar.

The suit alleges that even if the “Sugar-Free” protein drink names were accurate, Starbucks has failed to include FDA-required disclosures, such as “not a low calorie food” or “not for weight control,” for the products anywhere on its physical menu, mobile app, website or in third-party delivery apps.

According to the case, each Starbucks protein drink at issue contains approximately 270 to 340 calories per venti serving.

Who is covered by the Starbucks protein drinks lawsuit?

The Starbucks class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who purchased one or more hot or iced Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Latte, Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Latte, Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Matcha and Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha beverages for personal, family or household use from the date the products were launched through the date of class certification.

Am I eligible for the Starbucks class action lawsuit?

Generally, you don’t need to do anything to join a case when it is initially filed. Should the case be resolved with a class action settlement, class members will typically receive written notice of the deal by mail and/or email with instructions on any next steps and details about their legal rights.

If you’ve purchased one or more Starbucks “Sugar-Free” protein beverages, or just want to stay informed about class action lawsuit and class action settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.

Looking for current class action lawsuits to join? Check out ClassAction.org’s class action lawsuit list.