In 2022, New York consumers Joan Kominis and Jason McAllister filed a $5 million class action lawsuit against Starbucks, claiming the Mango Dragonfruit, Strawberry Açaí, and Pineapple Passionfruit Refreshers contain no real mango, dragonfruit, açaí, or passionfruit—instead using mostly water, grape juice concentrate, and flavoring. They argued the names and menu boards misled reasonable customers into paying premium prices for drinks without the advertised fruit. U.S. District Judge John Cronan dismissed fraud claims in 2023 but let most consumer-protection counts move forward. After months of settlement talks, both sides voluntarily dismissed the case in September 2024 with no public details on any payout or label changes. The lawsuit highlights growing scrutiny of “fruit-named” beverages that rely on flavors rather than actual ingredients, pushing brands toward clearer labeling to avoid similar false-advertising claims.
Long Version
The Starbucks Fruit Refresher Class Action Lawsuit: Unpacking Allegations of Misleading Advertising
In the realm of consumer beverages, few brands command as much loyalty as Starbucks, renowned for its array of drinks that blend convenience with perceived premium quality. However, a notable class action lawsuit, Kominis v. Starbucks Corp., brought scrutiny to the company’s popular Refreshers line, highlighting tensions between product naming, ingredients, and consumer expectations. Filed in a New York federal court under Case No. 1:22-cv-06673, this litigation centered on claims of false advertising and misrepresenting the contents of fruit-based drinks, alleging that products like the Mango Dragonfruit, Strawberry Açaí, and Pineapple Passionfruit Refreshers lacked the actual fruits they purported to feature. This case, which sought at least $5 million in damages, underscored broader issues in consumer protection, where reasonable consumers might feel overcharged for beverages predominantly made with water, grape juice concentrate, and sugar rather than the advertised premium ingredients.
Origins of the Allegations: What Sparked the Lawsuit?
The lawsuit originated in August 2022 when plaintiff Joan Kominis, later joined by Jason McAllister, filed a complaint against Starbucks Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The core allegations revolved around misleading advertising practices, asserting that Starbucks’ Refreshers—marketed as vibrant, fruit-infused drinks—did not contain the fruits highlighted in their names, such as açaí, mango, or passionfruit. Instead, the products were said to rely on artificial flavors and grape juice concentrate to mimic these tastes, leading consumers to believe they were purchasing beverages with genuine superfood elements that could offer health benefits.
Plaintiffs argued that this misrepresenting of ingredients violated consumer protection laws, as menu boards and advertising emphasized fruit themes without disclosing the absence of actual mango, passionfruit, or açaí. For instance, the Mango Dragonfruit Refresher was accused of containing no mango or dragonfruit, while the Strawberry Açaí version allegedly omitted açaí entirely, despite its positioning as a refreshing, fruit-forward option. This discrepancy between flavors vs. ingredients was central, with claims that reasonable consumers would expect real fruit in drinks named after specific produce, especially when sold at a premium price.
The complaint detailed how baristas and promotional materials reinforced these perceptions, potentially leading to overcharged purchases. Comparisons were drawn to other Starbucks products, like the Pumpkin Spice Latte, which includes real pumpkin, to illustrate inconsistencies in how the company handles ingredient disclosures. Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of affected consumers, emphasizing that the alleged false advertising resulted in financial harm through inflated costs for what were essentially sweetened, flavored waters. To further contextualize, this suit emerged amid increasing consumer skepticism toward processed beverages, where labels promising natural or health-oriented features are closely examined for authenticity.
Legal Proceedings: From Filing to Partial Dismissal
Assigned to U.S. District Judge John Cronan, the case progressed through several key stages. Starbucks promptly filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the product names described flavors, not literal ingredients, and that no reasonable consumer would interpret them otherwise. In September 2023, Judge Cronan issued a ruling granting the motion in part, dismissing claims related to fraud and unjust enrichment due to insufficient evidence of intent to defraud. However, he allowed nine other causes of action to proceed, finding plausible grounds that the naming could mislead consumers about the presence of actual fruit.
This partial dismissal was a pivotal moment, as it compelled Starbucks to defend against allegations of violating state consumer protection statutes and breaching warranties. Discovery ensued, with deadlines extended multiple times amid joint status reports indicating ongoing settlement discussions. By early 2024, the court had referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Gary Stein for oversight, and video status conferences addressed procedural extensions due to these talks. These extensions reflected the complexity of gathering evidence on consumer perceptions, ingredient sourcing, and marketing strategies, providing deeper insights into how large corporations navigate such disputes.
Settlement Discussions and Case Resolution
As litigation advanced, evidence of potential resolution emerged. In status updates from May 2024, parties reported active negotiations, leading to adjusted timelines for fact and expert discovery. These extensions pushed key deadlines into 2025, but ultimately, on September 9, 2024, a stipulation of voluntary dismissal was filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), effectively ending the case without prejudice. The action was terminated the following day, September 10, 2024.
While the exact terms remain confidential—typical in such voluntary dismissals—the timing aligns with reports of settlement efforts. No public announcements detailed any payout or changes to Starbucks’ practices, but the resolution avoided a full trial, which had been estimated at 5-10 days. As of December 2025, no further appeals, reopenings, or related filings have been noted in court records, confirming the case’s closure. This outcome highlights how many class actions conclude through private agreements, often to minimize reputational damage and legal costs, though it leaves consumers without transparent accountability on potential reforms.
Broader Implications for Consumer Protection and Industry Practices
This lawsuit fits into a growing trend of class actions targeting food and beverage giants for misleading claims, where products are accused of misrepresenting premium ingredients to justify higher prices. Similar cases have involved items like freeze-dried strawberries in other drinks or health benefits touted without substantiation, raising questions about how companies differentiate flavors from actual components. For Starbucks, the allegations highlighted potential vulnerabilities in advertising strategies, particularly as consumers increasingly demand transparency in ingredients amid rising awareness of processed foods. This scrutiny extends to the use of terms like “superfood” or fruit-specific descriptors, which can imply nutritional value not backed by contents.
The case also spotlighted the role of federal judges in interpreting what constitutes deceptive practices under laws like New York’s General Business Law. Judge Cronan’s decision emphasized that while some claims lacked merit, others warranted scrutiny, reinforcing protections against companies potentially overcharging for misrepresented products. Industry-wide, it serves as a cautionary tale, prompting brands to clarify labels and avoid implying health benefits from missing fruit or superfood elements. In response, some companies have begun enhancing ingredient disclosures on packaging and digital menus to preempt similar litigation.
Starbucks, for its part, maintained that the Refreshers were accurately described as flavored beverages, not literal fruit juices, and that ingredient lists were available upon request. The voluntary dismissal suggests a pragmatic resolution, possibly including undisclosed concessions, allowing the company to focus on innovation without ongoing litigation distractions. Looking ahead, this precedent may influence future product launches, encouraging more explicit distinctions between flavor profiles and actual ingredients to align with evolving consumer expectations.
In summary, the Kominis v. Starbucks Corp. saga illustrates the fine line between creative marketing and consumer deception in the competitive drinks market. By addressing these claims head-on, it contributes to evolving standards in consumer protection, ensuring that allegations of false advertising are thoroughly vetted to maintain trust in everyday products. For consumers, it reinforces the importance of scrutinizing labels, while for businesses, it underscores the risks of ambiguous naming in an era of heightened accountability. This case also encourages proactive measures, such as third-party audits of marketing claims, to foster greater industry integrity.
