“Not Being Heard Is No Reason For Silence”  – Victor Hugo

Bradley/Grombacher gives a voice to those injured by big insurance, pharmaceutical and Fortune 500 companies and works tirelessly to vindicate the rights of our clients who have been wronged.

Starbucks False Advertising Lawsuit Takes Aim at Doubleshot Espresso

A new Starbucks false advertising lawsuit has been filed against the coffee giant due to an allegation that Starbucks Doubleshot Espresso does not contain two shots of espresso as advertised.

Deceptive Advertising Laws

Advertising laws and consumer laws protect consumers from deceptive advertising. The primary purpose of these laws is to promote accuracy in labeling. This means that any information that a consumer should reasonably be informed about should be printed on a label of the product, ensuring that consumers know exactly what they are purchasing to minimize the level of manipulation engaged in by advertisers and manufacturers.

Deceptive advertising may also be referred to as false advertising and can lead to legal claims filed by consumers who believe that a company is trying to take advantage of misleading or false information. False advertising can refer to confusing, untrue or misleading statements that are used when promoting a product.

Labeling is a crucial component of a consumer’s decision-making process and materials that are printed on the front of any product label should be accurate so that a consumer can make an informed buying decision. When a manufacturer tries to take advantage of consumers by using confusing labeling techniques or false materials to support the sale of a product, this can lead to legal action such as the Starbucks false advertising lawsuit.

Starbucks False Advertising Lawsuit

The Starbucks false advertising lawsuit, filed by plaintiff Oliver Naimi in California federal court, says Starbucks misleads consumers into believing that its Doubleshot Espresso products contain a “doubleshot” — or two shots — of espresso.

Naimi argues that he and other consumers would not have purchased the Doubleshot Espresso products, or would have paid much less for them, if they knew they did not contain two shots of Starbucks brand espresso.

The Starbucks brand Doubleshot beverage has been on the market since 2002.

Research from the Starbucks website indicates that a single shot of Starbucks espresso contains approximately 75 mg of caffeine, and two shots contains approximately 150 mg. The products in the Starbucks Doubleshot Espresso line contain between 70 and 120 mg of caffeine content, not at least 150 mg.

The labeling on the product, according to the Starbucks false advertising lawsuit, leads consumers to believe they’ll be reaping the benefits of at least 150 mg of caffeine. Only upon closer inspection of the product would anyone see the actual amount of caffeine included, according to the plaintiff.

The Starbucks false advertising lawsuit attempts to hold the company responsible for using misleading advertising materials that encourage consumers to purchase products or to pay a premium price for those Doubleshot Espresso products.

Naimi is asking the court to certify the Starbucks false advertising lawsuit as a class action lawsuit on behalf of all similarly situated consumers in California. He is seeking damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and other remedies the Court deems appropriate.

The case is Oliver Naimi v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 17-cv-06484, U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

Did you purchase a product that was deceptively labeled? You may have a legal claim. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.

Categories

Request a Free Consultation

If you feel that your rights have been violated, call our experienced attorneys for a free evaluation.

Our Notable Victories

  • Galvan v. Doe $6,750,000
  • Valenzuela v. Doe $6,200,000
  • Gaisano v. Doe Tire Company $1,675,000
  • Smuckler v. City of South Pasadena $4,000,000
  • Gutierrez v. Dole $2,455,000
  • Gould v. Casares $2,450,000
  • Gonzalez v. Brown $2,000,000
  • Silberberg v. Titus $1,800,000
  • Doe Plaintiffs v. Doe Tire Company $1,675,000
  • LaVerne v. Doe $1,400,000
/

Reasons Why Clients Continue to Choose Us

  • No upfront payments required. We get paid when you do!
  • Excellent communication & access to our attorneys.
  • Proven track record of success. Just take a look at our cases!
  • Hablamos Español! We can assist you in both English and Spanish.

Highly Esteemed & Accomplished

  • We highly recommend!

    “Marcus guided us through the entire process with professionalism & compassion. His knowledge, thoroughness, and experience ensured the best possible outcome for our case and we highly recommend him.”

    - Kylie & Daniel C.
  • Marcus Bradley is a wonderful lawyer.

    “This settlement made it possible for my sister to have a much better life than I thought would be possible.”

    - Ellen T.
/

Your Rights Deserve Justice

Schedule a Free Consultation
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.