Starbucks is facing a proposed class action from consumers who allege that the coffee giant misleadingly marketed several protein beverages as “sugar-free” even though the drinks contain naturally occurring sugar from milk.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Seattle, challenges the labeling of eight Starbucks protein beverages. The consumers argue that customers would not reasonably expect a drink promoted as sugar-free to contain between 13 and 21 grams of sugar in a 20- or 24-ounce venti serving.
The complaint points to federal labeling rules that restrict the use of the term “sugar-free” on beverages containing more than 0.5 grams of sugar per 12-ounce serving.
According to the lawsuit, Starbucks’ marketing also failed to include disclosures allegedly required for products promoted in connection with calorie or weight-control considerations. The consumers contend that the company sought to benefit from growing demand among Americans looking to cut back on sugar.
Starbucks has rejected the allegations and said it plans to defend the case.
The company said it provides nutritional information and details about its protein drinks, sugar-free selections and customization options through its menus, website, app and other marketing materials.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and accuses Starbucks of false advertising and violations of consumer-protection laws in several states.
The drinks at the center of the dispute include Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Latte, Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Latte, Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Matcha and Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha, along with iced versions of those beverages.
Starbucks describes the drinks as protein-packed and promotes them as having “no added sugar.” Its website, however, also lists sugar content for the beverages. Depending on the selection, venti servings contain roughly 270 to 340 calories.
The company introduced the protein beverages in September 2025 as part of its broader menu overhaul under its “Back to Starbucks” strategy.
The case adds Starbucks to a broader wave of litigation targeting food and beverage companies over claims involving “sugar-free” and “zero sugar” products. Similar lawsuits have increasingly focused on whether consumers could be misled when products contain naturally occurring sugars or alternative sweeteners.
