Starbucks mislabeled some protein drinks as sugar-free, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

On Oct. 2, 2026, Michael Walsh, Anne Legnini and Elna Potter filed a class action lawsuit against Starbucks Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The lawsuit alleges Starbucks sells eight protein drinks whose names begin with "sugar-free" even though each contains 13 to 21 grams of sugar per venti serving.

What qualifies as sugar-free?

Under FDA rules, a food or drink can claim to be sugar-free if it has less than half a gram of sugar per standard serving, which the agency sets at 12 ounces for ready-to-drink coffee. The rules count lactose, the natural sugar in milk, as a sugar. A sugar-free item that is not low-calorie must also carry a statement saying so.

The Starbucks products

The Starbucks products at issue include:


  • Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Latte

  • Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Latte

  • Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Matcha

  • Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha

  • Iced Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Latte

  • Iced Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Latte

  • Iced Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Matcha

  • Iced Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha

Milk is at the top the ingredient list for six of the drinks and comes second, after ice, in the other two, the complaint claims.

Each drink allegedly has 13 to 26 times the sugar the federal limit allows per 12 ounces. The lawsuit also claims Starbucks does not pair the sugar-free claims with the calorie statement federal rules require.

Sugar figures appear only in small print near the bottom of the company's online product pages, often blocked by a footer, and not on store menus or delivery apps, the proposed class action contends. The class action targets the names themselves and does not seek to force Starbucks to post sugar counts.

The plaintiffs allege they understood "sugar-free" in the drinks' names to mean they had no sugar and did not see any any material disclosing sugar content in the drinks before the purchased them, the complaint alleges. All three claim they would not have bought the drinks, or would have paid substantially less, had they known how much sugar they contained.

The legal claims

The lawsuit brings eight claims:


  • Washington Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits unfair methods of competition and deceptive business practices

  • California Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, which bar deceptive business practices and misleading ads

  • California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, which bars misrepresenting a product's qualities

  • New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive practices and false ads

  • Breach of implied warranty, which applies when a product fails to match what its label promises

  • Unjust enrichment, which covers money a company should not fairly keep

The plaintiffs seek refunds and money damages, extra damages meant to punish the company, a court order barring sugar-free names on drinks that contain sugar and payment of their legal fees.

What the lawsuit means for Starbucks customers

The proposed nationwide class covers anyone in the United States who bought one or more of the eight drinks for personal, family or household use from their launch through class certification with alternative subclasses for purchases in California, New York and Washington.

There is no settlement, no claims process and no money available at this time.