Starbucks $5M lawsuit over too much ice in its iced beverages

[vraiblonde]

the coffee isn't "iced" unless it is poured over ice. Thats how icing works. thats also how they get the flavor people are looking for when they order iced coffee. If you want it strained of the ice so you just get cold coffee then ask for that. The menu does not say '24oz of coffee over ice' it says 'iced coffee-24oz'.

again, this is just stupid. Iced coffee and iced tea are supposed to have ice in them.

Are you one of those people who says "ice tea" instead of "iced tea"?

The -ed on the end of "ice" makes it an adjective (modifying a noun). In the example of "iced coffee", "iced" is the adjective that modifies the noun "coffee". Note that "iced" is not the noun (thing); it is the modifier. "Coffee" is the noun (thing).

You are trying to convince me that "iced" is the noun (thing), and I suggest you go back, learn some remedial English, and unpack your adjectives.

 

[Midnightrider]

Are you one of those people who says "ice tea" instead of "iced tea"?

The -ed on the end of "ice" makes it an adjective (modifying a noun). In the example of "iced coffee", "iced" is the adjective that modifies the noun "coffee". Note that "iced" is not the noun (thing); it is the modifier. "Coffee" is the noun (thing).

You are trying to convince me that "iced" is the noun (thing), and I suggest you go back, learn some remedial English, and unpack your adjectives.

it doesn't matter what you call it or how you disect the sentence, iced tea has ice in it, so does iced coffee. Thats just the way it is, all of your ridiculous hair splitting aside. Further, you effing know that going in. If you dont you are stupid. Even then after you order either one the first time, you know thats how they come from then on.

 

[vraiblonde]

iced tea has ice in it, so does iced coffee.

Not necessarily. It could be tea or coffee that has been chilled with ice, but contain no actual ice. "Iced" being a, you know, adjective and all.

Nor am I impressed with your "that's just the way it is." Really? So if that's just the way something has been in the past, it should always remain that way? How very hard right conservative of you.

 

[Midnightrider]

Not necessarily. It could be tea or coffee that has been chilled with ice, but contain no actual ice. "Iced" being a, you know, adjective and all.

Nor am I impressed with your "that's just the way it is." Really? So if that's just the way something has been in the past, it should always remain that way? How very hard right conservative of you.

well you keep on tilting at that windmill.....

and yes, that is just the way it is. you can try to reinvent the name all you want, iced tea has ice in it, so does iced coffee. insisting differently is just stupid. I guess your next big issue will be when you discover a hamburger doesn't have any ham in it

 

[vraiblonde]

and yes, that is just the way it is. you can try to reinvent the name all you want,

I'm sorry...what was that?

You seem to think that I brought this lawsuit, however the voices in your head are wrong once again; this is not my suit or my "big issue". You should see a doctor about your hallucinations. Take an English class while you're at it.

 

[Midnightrider]

She has a point. I suppose you can ask for no ice, but that kind of defeats the idea of an "iced coffee". That's always been a source of annoyance for me - you get a "32 oz" soft drink and there's really only maybe 16 oz of actual drink and the rest is ice.

Starbucks' excuse is lame: "our customers understand that we don't really mean 24 oz of coffee when we say that on the menu."

This is typically my solution to life's little first world problems. Protest with my wallet.

However, Starbucks does indeed have "iced coffee, Venti (24 oz)" on their menu. You are in fact NOT getting 24 oz of "iced coffee"; you are getting 14ish oz of iced coffee and 10oz of ice. Since you like to play word games, "iced coffee" indicates coffee that has been iced down, not ice itself. What it should really say is "ice and coffee, 24 oz".

When I go to Wawa and get a fountain drink, the cup has the volume printed on it and in that case it is understood that the cup holds 44 oz. What you fill it with is up to you. When you are being served a drink and have no control over the ratio of contents, stating on a menu that you will receive 24 oz of the product when it's not even close is highly misleading, if not an outright lie.

And if this is the most frivolous lawsuit you've ever seen, you need to get out more.

My solution to the Starbucks problem: they should have coffee ice cubes - ice made from coffee. Then the drink will be all icy cold, but when the ice melts it doesn't water down the drink. AND the cup will be legitimately filled with 24 oz of coffee.

TA-DAH!

Are you one of those people who says "ice tea" instead of "iced tea"?

The -ed on the end of "ice" makes it an adjective (modifying a noun). In the example of "iced coffee", "iced" is the adjective that modifies the noun "coffee". Note that "iced" is not the noun (thing); it is the modifier. "Coffee" is the noun (thing).

You are trying to convince me that "iced" is the noun (thing), and I suggest you go back, learn some remedial English, and unpack your adjectives.

Not necessarily. It could be tea or coffee that has been chilled with ice, but contain no actual ice. "Iced" being a, you know, adjective and all.

Nor am I impressed with your "that's just the way it is." Really? So if that's just the way something has been in the past, it should always remain that way? How very hard right conservative of you.

I'm sorry...what was that?

You seem to think that I brought this lawsuit, however the voices in your head are wrong once again; this is not my suit or my "big issue". You should see a doctor about your hallucinations. Take an English class while you're at it.

yeah, it looks like its not an issue for you at all

 

[vraiblonde]

yeah, it looks like its not an issue for you at all

I don't even know what to say when you go off on these hallucinatory tangents.

I did not bring this lawsuit.

If you think I did, then you are either mentally ill or stupid. I've asked you repeatedly which it is and you've declined to answer, so perhaps you simply don't know.

I'm discussing a topic on a, you know, discussion board. You, on the other hand, appear to be losing your mind over this. Considering you're the one who feels compelled to mangle and redefine the English language in order to defend your beloved Starbucks, I'd say it's you that has the issue.

 

[Midnightrider]

I don't even know what to say when you go off on these hallucinatory tangents.

I did not bring this lawsuit.

If you think I did, then you are either mentally ill or stupid. I've asked you repeatedly which it is and you've declined to answer, so perhaps you simply don't know.

I'm discussing a topic on a, you know, discussion board. You, on the other hand, appear to be losing your mind over this. Considering you're the one who feels compelled to mangle and redefine the English language in order to defend your beloved Starbucks, I'd say it's you that has the issue.

Maybe you ought to take your own advice and take some English classes. I never said you brought the lawsuit. You are however one of the few that have taken the position that iced coffee shouldn't have ice in it. Then you play this game where I am wrong to state that iced tea and iced coffee just have ice in them. Since you can't defend that point you have gone on this ridiculous rant about me redefining the language, when the reality is that is exactly what you are doing. Iced coffee just had ice in it. It is completely stupid to make any other claim, but that isn't stopping you.

Rock on with your bad self

 

[terbear1225]

simple solution, ask for a 24oz. hot beverage and a large cup with some ice in it.

 

[BadGirl]

I ask this question, because I really don't know because I've NEVER had a Starbucks coffee before, but does an "ICED Coffee" start with a glass full of ice and HOT coffee poured on it, or is it a glass full of ice and COLD coffee poured on it?

They should use COLD coffee, to minimize the need for quite so much ice.

 

[Tilted]

I ask this question, because I really don't know because I've NEVER had a Starbucks coffee before, but does an "ICED Coffee" start with a glass full of ice and HOT coffee poured on it, or is it a glass full of ice and COLD coffee poured on it?

They should use COLD coffee, to minimize the need for quite so much ice.

They have a separate drink called Cold Brew, which as the name suggests is brewed cold (over a longer period of time). As for the Iced Coffee, it's brewed extra strong and then poured over ice. I'm not sure whether they typically let it cool some first, but that would seem to defeat the purpose of brewing it stronger which is meant to allow some of the ice to melt (and cool the drink) and still have the drink be of the right flavor - be the right strength. In effect the water from the ice is just part of the water that makes up the coffee, it just starts as ice (rather than being added as part of the brewing process) so that the drink will be colder when the customer drinks it.

As for the lawsuit: It's pretty frivolous for a number of reasons. I would think that at least some of them don't really need to be gone over (more), but if someone wants to I suppose we can find a few minutes to waste to do just that.

 

[vraiblonde]

As for the lawsuit: It's pretty frivolous for a number of reasons.

You would have to define "frivolous", which is a matter of opinion. MR says this is THE MOST! frivolous lawsuit he's EVER! heard of , but that simply cannot be true because there are far more frivolous lawsuits filed every single day in this country.

And won:

Oh, wait...you mean Redbull doesn't really give you wings?

 

[Tilted]

You would have to define "frivolous", which is a matter of opinion. MR says this is THE MOST! frivolous lawsuit he's EVER! heard of , but that simply cannot be true because there are far more frivolous lawsuits filed every single day in this country.

Oh, and won:

Oh, wait...you mean Redbull doesn't really give you wings?

I don't think I'd call it the most frivolous lawsuit I've ever seen, not unless I was being hyperbolic.

But it's pretty frivolous.

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't think I'd call it the most frivolous lawsuit I've ever seen, not unless I was being hyperbolic.

But it's pretty frivolous.

Why do you feel that it's frivolous?

 

[Misfit]

After all this I'm switching to tea.

 

[GWguy]

After all this I'm switching to tea.

Ice tea or iced tea?

 

[BadGirl]

Ice tea or iced tea?

When I make my tea, I pour refrigerated tea in to my (water) bottle half-way and freeze that bottle until it's frozen solid. Then I remove it from the freezer when solid and top it off with more refrigerated tea. That way, my tea is ice cold all day long.

So, what am I drinking: Iced tea or ice tea?

 

[Hank]

 

[Tilted]

Why do you feel that it's frivolous?

For a number of reasons. I don't really want to go back over the point that you and Midnightrider have been disagreeing on, but in addition to that issue...

There's a concept related to civil actions based on supposed harm done to plaintiffs whereby those plaintiffs have a responsibility to take reasonable actions to mitigate the harm done to them. How applicable that concept is depends, e.g. on the nature of the action and perhaps the jurisdiction. But basically it means that in order to be entitled to compensation for an alleged harm the plaintiff has to have taken reasonable steps to minimize how much harm they suffered or to have avoided the harm altogether. If someone negligently cuts my leg and it starts to get infected and I choose not to seek medical assistance to prevent that infection from becoming a larger problem (maybe I decide I don't want to take antibiotics), then I'm probably not going to win a damage award based on my having subsequently lost my leg when the infection got out of control. If I could have acted reasonably to avoid those damages, then it's kinda too bad so sad for me that I chose not to. I might still be entitled to some damages if the injury would have been serious enough even had I sought medical treatment. But losing the leg and how that might impact my employment going forward? That's on me.

I'm pretty sure that Starbucks would make an Iced Coffee with less ice (and thus more fluid to begin with) if someone asked them to. Further, I'm pretty sure that Starbucks would remake a drink if someone was unhappy with how it was made to begin with. So a member of this class could have taken reasonable steps to mitigate whatever damage they might have suffered because of Starbucks' actions.

Also, I think most reasonable people understand that the advertised size of a beverage refers to the size of the container and not to the exact amount of fluid that they will be getting. Most people understand that a large coke will - unless they request something different - not be a cup (of whatever size large refers to) full of just coke. The implicit meaning of the stated size is nearly universally understood. The plaintiff in this case is, in effect, hanging her hat on the fact that the size of these beverages are (among other things) described by actual ounce amounts rather than just as small, medium, large, etcetera. The claim is basically that there's a form of fraud being committed. I think that's a bit too sophistic an argument. The ice in these kinds of beverages is part of the way the menu item is by default served, it's like the ketchup on certain hamburgers. If someone doesn't want it that way, fine. But otherwise it is part of the menu item that is being ordered. The drink that is being ordered in this case is part (extra strong) coffee and part ice, just as different menu item that is ordered might be part coffee (which is itself part this and part that) and part milk and part sugar. The ice and the coffee are the drink as Starbucks has conceived and offered and served it.

Also, similarly, its the kind of thing that is within the discretion of a business offering various food or beverage items. How they prepare this dish or that drink is up to them. Customers then choose whether they like those items prepared that way. If the intent of referring to an Iced Coffee (24 oz) (or however exactly it is referred to) was to trick people about how much liquid coffee was in the cup when it was first served, then she might have a case. But I think most people would understand that that wasn't the intent - most people understand that 24 oz refers to the size of the cup. If they're unhappy with how full it is or with what the mixture of stuff within it is, they can ask to have it redone or stop ordering it or stop going to that establishment altogether.

When someone orders fried chicken, they are ordering fried chicken. It isn't just chicken, it's chicken that has been fried. The fried aspect is part of the menu item - e.g., the breading and grease that comes along with it is part of the dish. If I ordered 10 pounds of fried chicken and what I got was 9 pounds 8 ounces of chicken meat (and bone) and 8 ounces of breading, that wouldn't be fraud. It would be 10 pounds of fried chicken. If I thought the order was too heavy on the breeding and not heavy enough on the chicken meat - well, okay. I might complain about that. But I haven't been defrauded or the victim of false advertisement. I just don't like the way the restaurant makes that menu item.


EDIT: Okay, so I ended up going back over the point you all were arguing about. Sue me.

 

[Tilted]

Also, I didn't realize that some people refer to it as ice tea. I've always referred to it (and thought that others were referring to it) as iced tea. Maybe I'll listen closer next time to make sure which one people around me are saying. To me ice tea would be a block of tea that is frozen. Iced tea would be tea that has been iced, i.e. has had ice put into it (or tea that has been poured over ice).