Food & Beverage

Starbucks says sugar-free lawsuit allegations have no merit

Source: Shutterstock

October 8, 2026 by Amy Sorter — Writer and Editor, Connect Media

Summarize with

Starbucks said the lawsuit filed against it this week over the labeling of its sugar-free protein beverages 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. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter," the company told FastCasual.

But the lawsuit raises another question: What exactly does "sugar-free" mean?

The answer might depend on whether a drink contains added sugar or any sugar at all. That distinction is at the center of a federal lawsuit filed late Friday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle.

Filed by Hagens Berman on behalf of plaintiffs in California, New York and Washington, the lawsuit alleges that eight protein beverages Starbucks sells in the U.S. contain measurable amounts of sugar despite being marketed as "sugar-free." The complaint says the drinks contain between 13 and 21 grams of sugar per venti serving. The beverages named in the suit include Starbucks' sugar-free vanilla and caramel protein lattes and sugar-free vanilla and caramel protein matchas.

Starbucks' defense is that it has been transparent about the drinks' nutritional content, publishing total sugar counts on menu boards, its website and its mobile app. The company also says the sugar is lactose, which occurs naturally in milk rather than being an added sweetener. Specifically, Starbucks says "sugar-free" describes what it adds to the drink. Meanwhile, the lawsuit asks whether consumers would reasonably understand the phrase to refer to the drink itself.

The lawsuit doesn't necessarily claim that Starbucks concealed the amount of sugar in its beverages. Instead, it challenges whether "sugar-free" correctly describes finished products that contain measurable amounts of naturally occurring sugar.

Starbucks Isn't Alone

The Starbucks case comes amid a broader series of legal challenges involving "zero sugar," "sugar-free," and "no added sugar" claims.

Liquid I.V. has faced litigation over its sugar-free electrolyte drink mix. Plaintiffs argue that the product contains allulose, a naturally occurring sweetener found in some foods. The issue is complicated by the FDA's regulatory treatment of allulose, which differs from that of traditional sugars.

Other allulose-containing products have faced similar issues. More significantly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently revived a proposed class-action lawsuit against Chobani over its "zero sugar" yogurt. The complaint alleges that the yogurt contains four grams of allulose per serving. When the Chobani lawsuit was initially filed in 2023, the company pointed to 2020 FDA guidance stating that the agency would not include allulose in the "total sugars" or "added sugars" declarations on Nutrition Facts labels while it continued evaluating the ingredient.

The Seventh Circuit's decision sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings, including discovery into whether a reasonable consumer could be misled by "zero sugar" labeling on products containing allulose.

The Starbucks complaint cites the Chobani decision, although Starbucks' drinks contain lactose, not allulose.

What the FDA Says

Unlike allulose, which is more complex from a regulatory standpoint, lactose is squarely within the FDA's definition of sugar. The agency's guidance on "sugar-free" claims says that a product may be labeled "sugar-free" only if it contains less than 0.5 grams of total sugars per labeled serving. The FDA's definition includes naturally occurring sugars as well as added sugars. That includes sucrose, fructose and lactose.

Back at Starbucks, the company can accurately say it has not added sugar to its beverages. At the same time, the finished drinks can still contain substantial amounts of naturally occurring lactose from milk.

This is where "no added sugar" and "sugar-free" become two very different claims.

The Starbucks defense

Starbucks' argument is essentially that the "sugar-free" designation refers to the flavored syrups used in the beverages, rather than to the beverages themselves. Those syrups contain no added sugar, while the lactose comes from the protein-boosted milk used to make the drinks. The company also points to the nutritional information it provides to consumers, including the total sugar content of each beverage.

This raises two questions.

First, if Starbucks has been transparent with consumers about what they are actually drinking. The company says it has.

And second, if a product containing 13 to 21 grams of total sugar can legally be described as "sugar-free" under the FDA's definition, which is what the plaintiff is asking.

Answering these questions could prove considerably more important than whether the sugar in the drink was added at Starbucks or was already in the milk.

About Amy Sorter

Amy W. Sorter is an award-winning journalist, copywriter and content producer. Sorter has generated quality articles, blogs and thought leadership pieces for multiple industries during her many decades as a writer. Her byline has appeared in local and national publications including the American Business Journal, Connect CRE, Bankrate, CURE Magazine and the Dallas Morning News.

Connect with Amy: