Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Starbucks Sued Over Misleading Sugar-Free Claims

At the beginning of October, three consumers sued Starbucks (see complaint) alleging that many of the beverages sold by the company and advertised as “sugar-free” in fact contain substantial amounts of sugar.

For example, their Caramel Protein Matcha is promoted as sugar-free:

Caramel Protein Matcha

However, when more detail is presented, Starbucks changed the claim from “sugar-free” to “no added sugar” and disclosed that this size drink actually contains 16 grams of sugar which is four teaspoons.

*MOUSE PRINT:

"no added sugar"

The sugar here is natural sugar (lactose) from the added milk which is a major ingredient.

Matcha ingredients

Under federal law, “sugar-free” is a defined term meaning the food can contain no more than half a gram of sugar.

Consumers may reasonably be expected to regard terms that represent that the food contains no sugars or sweeteners e.g., “sugar free,” or “no sugar,” as indicating a product which is low in calories or significantly reduced in calories.

The term “no added sugar” is different. It means no amount of sugar or its equivalent has been added to the product as a sweetener other than in an ingredient that naturally contains sugar.

The lawyers in this case are suing the company for violations of various state consumer protection laws prohibiting deceptive practices, and they are also seeking a court order to stop the company from calling beverages “sugar free” when that is not the case.

For its part, Starbucks told the Associated Press:

“We believe these claims have no merit. Starbucks has consistently and clearly provided information about its protein beverages, sugar-free options, customization choices and nutritional content across product announcements, menus, marketing materials, Starbucks.com and the Starbucks app, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”

Incidentally, lawyers are investigating other products making “no added sugar” and “sugar free” claims.

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Chinese Seller Pretends To Be Upscale Boston Store

Harper & Wells Boston looks and sounds like a legitimate high-end clothing store in Boston. Their website features a huge picture of the Longfellow Bridge in downtown Boston. They sell pretty pricey clothing with so-called regular prices of $349.99 for slip-ons, and a classic men’s collared button-down shirt for $249.99, for example.

Harper & Wells

Scroll down the site.

Having lived in Boston for over 50 years, MrConsumer has never heard of Harper & Wells, let alone ever shopped at such a high-end store. However, a reader of TINA.org recently tipped them off to what might be a huge ripoff.

First, there is no such store in Boston registered with the City Clerk’s office.

At the very bottom of their homepage in fine print is a business address of 73 Greenwood St,, Boston, MA 02121.

*MOUSE PRINT:

That is the address of a run-down triple decker in the Dorchester section of Boston — and not a fancy-schmancy clothing store.

Greenwood street triple decker

The company says they offer hassle-free easy returns.

easy returns

The truth is anything but because of two clauses in their return policy.

*MOUSE PRINT:

  • The customer is responsible for all return shipping costs.

  • All returns must be sent to our central warehouse.

    • While those are typical requirements at some online sellers, they are particularly meaningful in light of something buried in the company’s terms and conditions:

    *MOUSE PRINT:

    All our products are shipped directly to the consumer from our supplier in China. Any charges such as customs duties, import duties are the responsibility of the consumer.

    Apparently it can cost $30-$50 per item to return clothing to China.

    Gotcha!

    Needless to say, hopefully this company will collapse because of their hidden anti-consumer policies or by action of some state attorney general.

    For additional insights into this company, see the well-researched investigation done by Truth in Advertising.

    Share this story:

     

    ADV
    Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

    Bombas Accused of Running Deceptive Sales

    Bombas socksA Washington state consumer sued Bombas in July for running misleading, continuous sales. Bombas is best known as the sock company that appeared on Shark Tank in 2014 where they promoted the fact that they donate one pair of socks to needy people for every pair sold.

    According to the complaint:

    Bombas “sent emails with subject lines stating that purported sales were set to expire soon, or on a specific date. But when many sales ended, they were either extended upon expiration or another comparable sale began shortly thereafter (oftentimes within a week), and the Products’ prices did not immediately revert to and stay at the supposed pre-sale Reference Prices for a reasonably substantial time period. The cycle continues repeatedly.”

    As one example, the consumer’s lawyers showed a chart of emails sent during a short period of time and even though the 25% off was supposed to end, it continued, and then was repeated three days later.

    *MOUSE PRINT:

    Bombas emails

    Bombas is accused of violating both state and federal law that require advertised sales to be discounts from actual regular prices, not from ones that are rarely if ever charged. In addition, Washington state prohibits false or misleading subject lines in emails, such as by using false sale ending dates. The court is also being asked to enjoin Bombas from continuing to advertise in a deceptive manner.

    As of this writing, the company is seeking to have the complaint dismissed and has asked for a November hearing.

    Share this story:

     

    ADV