Chicago woman sues Starbucks for putting too much ice in drinks

[Hans Mann]

A Chicago woman has sued Starbucks Corp in federal court, claiming the world's largest coffee chain puts too much ice in chilled drinks, and is seeking $5 million.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago last week by Stacy Pincus, the lawsuit said Starbucks iced coffee and iced tea drinks contain less than the advertised amount of beverage.

Lawyers have applied for class status for the lawsuit, which alleges that an iced drink touted as containing 24 ounces actually has only about 14 ounces of fluid.

"Starbucks' advertising practices are clearly meant to mislead consumers when combined with the standard practice of filling a cold drink cup with far less liquid than the cup can hold," the lawsuit charged. "If Starbucks truly intended to provide the amount of fluid ounces in its Cold Drinks that it advertises, there would be simple ways to do so."

Starbucks called the lawsuit "without merit" in an emailed statement to Reuters.

"Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential component of any 'iced' beverage," a spokeswoman for the Seattle-based company said. "If a customer is not satisfied with their beverage preparation, we will gladly remake it."

Chicago woman sues Starbucks for putting too much ice in drinks | Reuters

[sabang]

Cool.

[Loy Toy]

All you have to do is look on the alarmed face of an employee when you ask for Nam Kang Nit Noi.

You then end up with a one third full cup of beverage.

It is a well known fact that this express coffee business is one of the most profitable due to the profit margins on each serving.

[Bettyboo]

I think she's right, but $5,000,000 - only in America...

[VocalNeal]

which alleges that an iced drink touted as containing 24 ounces actually has only about 14 ounces of fluid.

How much liquid is there if one waits for the ice to melt? It is after all simply frozen liquid.

If Starbucks are smart there will be 24 oz of liquid in the container. But only 14 oz of coloured liquid.

Silly lawsuit I hope the loser pays the court costs.

[Davis Knowlton]

^Folks sue for everything/anything, no matter how idiotic...and for huge amounts in the hope they'll get a small payment to go away.

[AntRobertson]

Folks sue for everything/anything, no matter how idiotic...and for huge amounts in the hope they'll get a small payment to go away.

This reminds me of the infamous case of the woman and the hot McD's coffee that is often cited as a prime example of the sometimes frivolous litigious nature of the US.

I can't recall what the award was in that case now, but if you look at the actual facts whatever the damages were they were actually quite warranted (the store in question had previously been repeatedly warned and the woman actually suffered some horrendous burns).

This case on the other hand is complete and utter focking nonsense.

[Bettyboo]

^ I don't believe that to be the case. They are pisstakers; these drinks are $5+ and they skimp on the core ingredients - not good, imho. Profits over quality.

[AntRobertson]

They are pisstakers; these drinks are $5+ and they skimp on the core ingredients - not good, imho. Profits over quality.

Be that as it may, she's perfectly entitled to vote with her $ and go buy a drink elsewhere.

[Davis Knowlton]

Anything that fucks over Starbucks is fine by me.

[Bettyboo]

^ & ^^

I agree with both comments.

1) People should vote with their feet/money instead of putting up with low service, poor value for money, etc.

2) Such companies have destroyed local shopping communities all over the world.

Court cases are important though when these corporations care about nothing but profits.

[Loy Toy]

I am presently preparing what some may consider legally binding offical documents and if I do not word and specify every claim clearly I could be sued in the future.

If for any reason the plaintiff can prove that what the defendent advertise a product as against a price is incorrect then they have every right to sue.

[taxexile]

Anything that fucks over Starbucks is fine by me.

Spot on.

An awful company, selling an awful product at an extortionate price that has somehow suckered terminally stupid airheads the world over into religiously worshipping their toxic brand.

Anything that fucks them up is fine with me too.

[Dragonfly94]

This case on the other hand is complete and utter focking nonsense.

well a lawyer should know innit, same can be said of the hijab wearing criminal bitch suing the cops for removing her head rag in CA, madness.

[VocalNeal]

^ In Singapore at immigration they always have at least one woman immigration official. So burka can be lifted so she can verify the identity.

In CA the police should have had a female police officer insist the woman lift her burka to identify herself.

Easy innit. Ya know what I'm sayin?

[Dragonfly94]

No need to pander to them, they don't to anyone else. If they live in the west they can't expect to carry on as if they were still in shitlandia, but I see some Somalis are now suing for not being allowed to pray 5 times a day in a factory in the USA, fuk 'em.

[AntRobertson]

And a thread about Starbucks becomes another rant about Mooslims...

[Allotafargina]

And a thread about Starbucks becomes another rant about Mooslims...

Why does it bother you? Or is it a case of you having little else to worry about.

[AntRobertson]

Why does it bother you?

It doesn't.