When you order a pumpkin spice latte or a caramel macchiato from Starbucks, you likely have a good idea of its sugar content.
However, what can you anticipate if you request a beverage described as “sugar-free?”
This inquiry forms the basis of a proposed class-action lawsuit in the U.S. alleging that the coffee giant misleadingly marketed eight protein drinks as “sugar-free,” despite them containing between 13 and 21 grams of sugar per venti serving due to the natural sugars found in milk.
The lawsuit was lodged in a federal court in Seattle on Friday and has been reviewed by CBC News, asserting that Starbucks is attempting to exploit “the protein craze” and the dietary preferences of its patrons.
“By labeling its drinks ‘Sugar-Free,’ Starbucks makes a specific, measurable, and verifiable assertion regarding these beverages. Consumers depend on such assertions when deciding whether to purchase these products,” states the lawsuit.
“The 21 grams of sugar found in a venti Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha is approximately equivalent to five teaspoons of sugar. This amount is nearly as much sugar as found in a typical Kit Kat bar.”
A screenshot from an Instagram post by Starbucks dated October 23, 2025, promoting some protein beverages as sugar-free. (@Starbucks/Instagram)
A representative for Starbucks informed CBC News on Wednesday that they believe the claims made in the lawsuit lack “merit.”
“Starbucks has always provided clear and consistent information regarding its protein beverages, sugar-free selections, customization options, and nutritional facts … and we plan to defend ourselves vigorously,” the spokesperson stated.
So, are these beverages truly sugar-free? Is the labeling deceptive? And does this apply only to drinks in the U.S., or is it relevant for Canada as well?
Let’s delve deeper into the lawsuit and what is known.
Which drinks are being referenced?
The lawsuit identifies eight protein drinks that Starbucks markets as sugar-free:
- 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.
All these items can be found on both U.S. and Starbucks Canada websites in the “protein beverages” section. Although these eight drinks are categorized under a “no added sugar options” title, each one currently includes “sugar-free” in its name.
Starbucks introduced the drinks in September 2025, pointing to data suggesting that “71 percent of Canadian consumers want to increase their protein intake.” In a press release at that time, Starbucks emphasized that its new protein offerings would be “available unsweetened or sugar-free and are intended to cater to customers wishing to boost protein in their orders.”
Starbucks will soon join Tim Hortons in offering additional protein options in its caffeinated beverages, a strategy experts believe may enhance profit margins more than customer health.
Are the drinks actually sugar-free?
No, each drink contains sugar—ranging from 13 to 21 grams per venti serving. At the upper limit, this is roughly equivalent to the sugar found in a KitKat or Coffee Crisp chocolate bar, according to Health Canada.
When navigating the individual drinks on the company’s website, Starbucks provides nutritional details for each “sugar-free” protein beverage, including the sugar content by size. For example, a venti iced sugar-free vanilla protein latte is noted to contain 13 grams of sugar, while a venti sugar-free caramel protein matcha has 21 grams of sugar.
As highlighted in the lawsuit, “the sugar-free products all include milk, which contains lactose, a naturally occurring sugar.”
-
Whey up: Protein powder prices soar as global demand grows
-
Is it unprofessional to bring iced coffee to a job interview? Gen Z is being dragged for it
If it’s natural sugar, what’s the problem?
The lawsuit argues that the concern lies not in the source of the sugar, but in the labeling of the drinks as sugar-free.
“Even though it is known that Sugar-Free products contain milk, and that this milk has lactose—which is a sugar—and despite recognizing lactose as a sugar, Starbucks continues to label these drinks as ‘Sugar-Free,'” the lawsuit claims.
“Starbucks labels these drinks ‘Sugar-Free’ because it is aware that consumers trust such claims when making purchasing decisions.”
What are the consumer protection regulations?
According to U.S. federal law, Starbucks is prohibited from using the term “sugar-free” for beverages that contain over 0.5 grams of sugar per 12-ounce serving, as stated in the complaint. This holds true even if the sugar is derived from milk.
In Canada, for a product to be classified as sugar-free, it must have less than 0.5 grams of sugars per serving size, as per the Food and Drug Regulations.
New nutrition symbols are now mandatory for many packaged goods in Canada. They indicate if the product is high in saturated fat, sugars or sodium. But some experts worry they’re not obvious enough to make a difference.
In both the U.S. and Canada, there is a distinction between labeling a product as “sugar-free,” as Starbucks has done with its protein drink titles, and labeling it as having “no added sugars,” which is also how Starbucks describes the drinks in their nutritional details due to the use of sugar-free syrups.
Lactose is categorized as a sugar in both Canada and the U.S.
Food manufacturers often face lawsuits for alleged false advertising, including numerous recent cases disputing “sugar-free” or “zero sugar” claims for items containing a sugar substitute named allulose.
What are the next steps?
The complaint seeks unspecified damages for false advertising and breaches of various state consumer protection statutes. It also aims to have the case recognized as a class action and requests a jury trial “on all issues suitable for trial.”
The lawsuit was initiated on behalf of three individual consumers who purchased Starbucks’s sugar-free protein drinks in California, New York, and Washington.
Consumers avoid sugar for various reasons, including health concerns like diabetes, noted Steve Berman, a co-founder and managing partner of the Seattle-based law firm that filed the lawsuit, in a press release.
“For many individuals, such a significant mislabeling is crucial,” Berman stated.
“Drinks with this amount of sugar are akin to consuming a candy bar.”