- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have no passion fruit.
That’s what two consumers who have sued Starbucks for consumer protection law violations say about the coffee giant’s fruit-based drinks. This week, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled their case could move forward.
U.S. District Judge John Cronan said in his opinion that “a significant portion of reasonable consumers could plausibly be misled into thinking” that Starbucks Refreshers include the fruit in their names.
It’s the latest example of a recent legal trend that’s seen fed-up consumers taking major food and beverage companies to court over what they say is fishy advertising.
Plaintiffs typically argue that companies are going beyond simple marketing hyperbole and misrepresenting their food and drinks — whether it’s promising ingredients that aren’t there or displaying promotion images that don’t match the real-life items.
There has been a smorgasbord of accusations in recent years: Barilla pasta isn’t made in Italy. Burger King’s Whoppers are smaller than they appear. The “boneless wings” served at Buffalo Wild Wings aren’t actually chicken wings. Subway’s “100% tuna” sandwiches either partially or completely lack tuna. Taco Bell skimps on the fillings in its Mexican Pizza, Crunchwrap Supreme and more.
“In general, companies can say great things about their product and make any kind of opinion claims they want to make about it. They can even say it’s the best in the world,” said Louis Tompros, an intellectual property attorney at the law firm WilmerHale in Boston.
“Opinion claims about a product are called puffery, and they’re perfectly fine under false advertising law. What false advertising law does not allow is a false factual claim,” he said.
I have a hard time believing that lighting technology hasn’t come a long way since the 1980’s. There’s these things called LEDs that can produce massive amounts of light but don’t produce as much heat. You can find LED studio lights for photography and film pretty easily these days. You no longer have to have a photo studio that feels like inside of an Easy Bake Oven.
I agree, when it comes to things as old as Out of Control or I Love Rocky Road you could at least make the argument that they had to, due to the limitations of the technology at the time.
In the modern world, I kind of think it’s an excuse that they’re hanging on to because of how things used to be.
Yeah LEDs certainly produce less heat but that’s not going to keep guacamole from oxidizing or a soufflé from losing its puffy structure after a while on a set. Often it’s just more economical to make a fake than to keep a kitchen stocked nearby and a chef on staff the entire time.
Customers should still totally complain if the real items they purchase don’t look close enough to the fake ideal they were advertised though.
LED’s produce less heat than traditional lights but still end up putting out a significant amount over time. It’s not as bad, but there’s still heat generated and when you’re going for the ‘perfect’ shot, faking it guarantees you’ll get the shot.