Starbucks Under Refresher Pressure As NYC Woman Files Fruitless Suit

NEW YORK CITY, NY — Starbucks faces a fruitless suit after a New York City judge ruled it wasn't moot, court records show.

Starbucks Refreshers drinks are the subject of the civil lawsuit brought by Astoria woman Joan Kominis outraged that her go-to Strawberry Acai beverage lacks a key ingredient: its eponymous fruit.

"Ubeknownst to consumers," the lawsuit contends, "the Mango Dragonfruit and Mango Dragonfruit Lemonade Refreshers contain no mango, the Pineapple Passionfruit and Pineapple Passionfruit Lemonade Refreshers contain no passionfruit, and the Strawberry Acai and Strawberry Acai Lemonade Refreshers contain no acai."

Starbucks — arguing Refreshers are named for flavors not ingredients and customers confusion could be dispelled by any barista — filed to have Kominis's case dismissed, but Manhattan U.S. District Judge John Cronan ruled Monday it could continue.

"The general consuming public could reasonably believe that the products contain the missing fruits," Cronan wrote in his decision.

Kominis's rude acai awakening came in late 2021 when she purchased the Refresher in question believing she was about to enjoy a true acai treat, the lawsuit contends.

Alas, no.

"Instead, all of the Products are predominantly made with primarily comprised of water, grape juice concentrate, and sugar," the lawsuit states.

Kominis's scan of the menu board spotted no warning that her digestive tract would remain acai free.

"Had she known that the product did not contain acai, she would not have purchased it, or would have paid significantly less for it," the lawsuit contends.

Refreshers cost from $3 to $5 for a grande size, leaving customers believing they're paying for ingredients with health and nutrition benefits, the lawsuit contends.

For example, acai berry and its juice, which are missing from the Strawberry Acai and Strawberry Acai Lemonade drinks, "are known to provide benefits to heart health, cognitive function, and contain anti-cancerous properties," while "mango is also known to be a great source of magnesium and potassium," the lawsuit noted.

The tropical names violate New York's consumer protection laws by representing to Starbucks customers that the drinks contain the fruits, the lawsuit contends.

Kominis also filed a fraud claim, but it was dismissed as the judge found no proof that the company intended to defraud customers.

The battle will continue Oct. 18, when both parties will appear virtually at an initial pretrial conference.

In a statement to Forbes, a Starbucks spokesperson challenged the legitimacy of Kominis's case.

“The allegations in the complaint are inaccurate and without merit," the spokesperson said. "We look forward to defending ourselves against these claims.”