A recent class-action lawsuit against Starbucks was dismissed because the coffee company is allegedly not filling drinks as advertised. This is a common practice at many coffee shops and the plaintiffs say the company intentionally underfills latte drinks to save money. The lawsuit seeks nominal compensation for class members and a big attorney fee. If you have had a bad experience with Starbucks, you may be able to win a case against the company.
The lawsuit claims that Starbucks violates several consumer protection laws, including the FTC Act.
For instance, the beverage served to a customer in a smaller size has half the amount of caffeine as a Venti-sized drink. This argues that Starbucks is engaging in a classic bait-and-switch scheme. The coffee giant denies that it misled customers. It is suing for $5 million in compensation.
Ultimately, the Starbucks lawsuit failed. A federal court in San Francisco threw out the suit. The two plaintiffs, Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles claimed that Starbucks was cheating customers by under-filling their drinks and overdoing foam. The complaint also alleged that the company over-foams its drinks. The company has denied the allegations, but the judge decided that there was enough evidence to sustain the class action.
This isn’t the first Starbucks lawsuit to go to trial. In the United States, this case was dismissed in November of 2016.
The plaintiffs had filed a claim against the coffee chain based on a misunderstanding. In a recent case, a judge ruled that a single person cannot bring a case against a large corporation. In the US, the ruling has thrown out a class-action lawsuit against Starbucks after it was found that the company was cheating customers.
The lawsuit against Starbucks was originally filed in Texas. The plaintiffs claimed that the coffee company underfilled their lattes, causing them to suffer from a lack of caffeine. Moreover, the court ruled that they should be compensated for their losses. In addition to the wrongful dismissal, the company has also paid lawyers’ fees and legal fees. The lawsuits can only be filed in the state where they occur.
The company has denied that it was wrong to understaff employees.
The company denied that they were overpaid. The lawsuit was filed by managers who were forced to work long hours and unpaid overtime despite their superior pay. This is because Starbucks underpaid their workers and they could not properly manage the operations of their stores. It is important to know the facts of the class action to be successful. It is a good idea to consult an attorney if you have experienced this situation.
This lawsuit has been filed in the Northern District of California. The case was initially filed by store managers who were forced to work unpaid overtime despite not having the necessary skills and qualifications to do so. The workers said that their duties were identical to those of hourly sales clerks. Moreover, the Starbucks class action was filed by the plaintiffs of a federal lawsuit against the coffee giant. It has also been a case that has led to a favorable settlement for both sides.
A recent Starbucks class action lawsuit has accused the coffee giant of violating multiple consumer protection laws and ignoring customers’ health.
According to the suit, the company systematically undercharges consumers by overcharging large drinks and delivering them with only half the amount of caffeine that is listed on the menu. Hence, the claimant has successfully sued Starbucks. The case is currently pending in California. This is one of the largest cases filed against the coffee giant in the country.
This lawsuit claims that Starbucks knowingly underfilled its lattes by half, forcing customers to pay more for their drinks. Similarly, the lawsuit alleges that it is a common practice for the company to underfill drinks. However, there are several other class actions against Starbucks that involve underserving thousands of customers. These class actions are also often used to protect consumers who have had bad experiences with a coffee shop. The claims in these cases are common, but they are not without merit.