The US district judge Percy Anderson wrote, "...a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into thinking that when they order an iced tea, that the drink they receive will include both ice and tea and that for a given size cup, some portion of the drink will be ice rather than whatever liquid beverage the consumer ordered." The Judge also mentioned noted that the cups are clear, so it is very easy for the customer to see how much ice they are getting.
In defense, Starbucks also pointed out that there is a "light ice" and "extra ice" option if customers have different ice preferences. Either way, Starbucks and the Judge agreed that Alexander Forouzesh was perfectly capable of ordering whatever amount of ice he wanted with his drink and getting a new one if he wasn't satisfied.
Surprisingly, this is not the only time Starbucks has been sued for its ice-to-coffee ratio. In the same year, Starbucks customer from Chicago, Stacy Pincus, filed a $5 million lawsuit, for again, Starbucks putting too much ice in their drinks. The suit was filed on May 2, 2016. "Starbucks is advertising the size of its Cold Drink cups on its menu, rather than the amount of fluid a customer will receive when they purchase a Cold Drink -- and deceiving its customers in the process," the suit says.
People will go to great lengths to earn money and file very strange and ridiculous lawsuits. First McDonald's coffee was too hot and now Starbucks is adding too much ice to their drinks. No matter who small the inconvenience, people will sue. Now, this brings up the question, if these strange lawsuits are reasonable or just ridiculous. In the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, at first glance, it may seem ridiculous that someone is suing over something as small as the temperature of a beverage. However, if you look deeper, it may be reasonable. The woman in the McDonald's hot coffee case actually had severe burns and damage to her skin. On the other hand, in the Starbucks ice lawsuit, nobody was harmed and having too much ice in your Venti Iced Tea may not be worth a $5 million dollar lawsuit. For the future, it is important to look at lawsuits and analyze whether it is actually a valid case or someone just looking for some extra money over small inconveniences.
Sources:
The level of entitlement one has to have to file a 5 million dollar lawsuit over a drink that was likely no more than 7$ is insane. While I do feel like big corporations hold too much economic power and profits at the expense of the consumers, this to me sounds more selfish than like "sticking it to the man"
ReplyDeleteI agree that the lawsuit was unreasonable. Unlike the hot coffee that Stella had been severely burned by, there is no real good reason to sue the company (unless the drink had been Dragon's Breath). The company stated that the man could have taken other actions to resolve the problem, which seem perfectly reasonable and further suggest that the man did not really care for the drink as much as getting money. While I believe that legals fees would be a huge disincentive for frivolous lawsuits, that is not the case here.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree that Forouzesh's Starbucks lawsuit was unreasonable and frivolous while Stella's hot coffee lawsuit was warranted. Ridiculous lawsuits like Forouzesh's discredit people who should actually be entitled to reparations from large corporations. In the hot coffee lawsuit, McDonald's was actually selling coffee that was considered too hot with a temperature of about 180-190 degrees. On the other hand, Forouzesh could not find anything fundamentally wrong with Starbucks' drink policy that indicated they were at fault. Starbuck's response that Forouzesh should've just asked the barista to remake his drink is the reasonable solution. The fact that Forouzesh's wasted time and money on legal fees shows that he didn't care about his drink but rather felt entitled to taking money from a big corporation for personal gain.
ReplyDelete