There is no lawsuit formally titled the “Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte lawsuit,” but the drink sits at the center of one federal class action and one major consumer campaign. In 2020, a California customer sued Starbucks in federal court alleging the company misled buyers about how much espresso and caffeine a Venti Pumpkin Spice Latte actually contains. Years earlier, in 2014 and 2015, public pressure over the drink’s ingredients, alongside related class action activity, pushed Starbucks to reformulate the recipe.
The 2020 Venti Espresso Class Action
On February 4, 2020, Teresa Adams filed a proposed class action against Starbucks in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Adams v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 8:20-cv-00225.1Comunicaffe. Class Action Lawsuit in California Accuses Starbucks of Bait-and-Switch Scheme The complaint accused Starbucks of a “bait-and-switch scheme” tied to the espresso content of its larger drinks.
Adams said she paid $5.45 for a Venti Pumpkin Spice Latte at a San Clemente Starbucks on November 20, 2019, expecting more espresso and caffeine than in a Grande. According to the complaint, hot espresso drinks at Starbucks contain the same two shots of espresso and 150 milligrams of caffeine in both the Grande and Venti sizes. The extra volume in a Venti is milk.2ClassAction.org. Starbucks Customers Duped by Amount of Espresso and Caffeine in Venti-Sized Drinks
Filed by Carlson Lynch LLP, the suit invoked California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and sought damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for a proposed class of Venti espresso drink buyers.3ClassAction.org. Adams v. Starbucks Corporation Complaint
Starbucks moved to dismiss. In July 2020, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna denied the motion, finding that Adams had “pled sufficient facts to support an omission theory of deception” and that he was “not ready to decide at this stage whether the coffee shop’s practices are in fact misleading.”4Top Class Actions. Starbucks Caffeine Class Action Lawsuit Beats Dismissal Available records do not show a final judgment, settlement, or trial outcome in the case.
The 2014 Ingredient Campaign and 2015 Reformulation
In August 2014, food blogger Vani Hari of Food Babe published a post titled “You’ll Never Guess What’s In A Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte (Hint: You Won’t Be Happy),” which drew more than 10 million views. At the time, Starbucks did not publish full beverage ingredient lists, and its public description of the drink referred only to “pumpkin and traditional fall spice flavors combined with espresso and steamed milk.”5Food Babe. Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte
Hari’s central complaints were that the PSL contained no actual pumpkin, that it used Class IV caramel coloring, and that disclosures conflicted on whether the sauce contained high-fructose corn syrup.6Food Babe. Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte Investigation Starbucks spokesperson Linda Mills said caramel coloring levels in the drink were “well below the No Significant Risk Level allowed by California’s Prop 65” and that the company was “actively looking at phasing” it out.8NBC News. Food Babe Takes on Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte
In August 2015, Starbucks announced it was adding real pumpkin puree to the PSL for the first time and removing caramel coloring entirely.7Los Angeles Times. Starbucks Adds Real Pumpkin to Pumpkin Spice Latte According to one legal analysis, the reformulation also followed class action litigation in 2015 over the original recipe’s lack of real pumpkin, though details of those specific cases are sparse in the public record.9Wisconsin Law Review. Under Pressure for Refreshers – Starbucks False Advertising
What Regulators Say About the Old Caramel Coloring
The health concern that drove the 2014 campaign was 4-methylimidazole, or 4-MEI, a byproduct formed when Class III and Class IV caramel colorings are manufactured. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies 4-MEI as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”10PIX11. Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte Secret Ingredients Revealed In 2011, California listed 4-MEI under Proposition 65, with a daily threshold of 29 micrograms above which products must carry a cancer warning.11National Center for Biotechnology Information. 4-MEI Exposure From Caramel Coloring in Beverages
The FDA considers caramel color safe as a food additive and does not recommend that consumers change their diets over 4-MEI, though it continues to review safety data. Federal rules do not require manufacturers to disclose which class of caramel coloring is used, so a label generally will not tell a consumer whether a product contains the classes associated with 4-MEI.12U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Questions and Answers About 4-MEI Claims circulating on social media that the PSL contained ammonia as a direct ingredient have been debunked; ammonia compounds are used in the manufacturing of Class IV caramel color but are not a standalone ingredient in the drink.13Fact Crescendo. Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte Is Not Carcinogenic None of these regulatory issues is the subject of a pending PSL-specific lawsuit in the record.
How PSL Fits Into Starbucks’s Consumer Litigation History
The PSL disputes belong to a longer run of consumer cases against Starbucks over labeling and ingredient claims. Beyond the 2015 pumpkin-related filings and the 2020 Adams case, a federal judge in New York in September 2023 denied Starbucks’s motion to dismiss a suit over its “Refreshers” beverages, ruling that “a significant portion of reasonable consumers could find” the product names misleading.9Wisconsin Law Review. Under Pressure for Refreshers – Starbucks False Advertising Those cases are separate from any PSL claim; if you are researching the Pumpkin Spice Latte specifically, the Adams espresso suit and the pre-2015 pumpkin-content complaints are the ones on point.