Woman suing Starbucks, after discovering Ice in her Iced Coffee

[Renee]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

Please put this legal principle into words, if you will.



It troubles me to hear people speak of anything that is "entrenched" in consumer protection, because consumer protection is quite a new addition to jurisprudence and very little of consumer protection is really what I consider settled law.



Why not?  Because we are playing here in the valley between Roman law and English law, or if you prefer...civil law vs. common law.  Slippery slopes abound.

Slippery slope my ass.  Truth has been a foundation in law for ages and the basis of consumer protection beyond dealing with contractual issues, is deception.  Business cannot deceive people for gain.  The legal question is whether or not Starbucks is deceiving customers using excessive ice in drinks to provide less drinkable product without disclosing this fact.



As I said, in other countries, Canada included, there are channels other than the lawsuits to investigate these issues.

I highly doubt ten ounce cups holding some ice instead of ten ounces of liquid was what consumer protection legislation had in mind.

I think it did actually.  It's meant to protect from practises that mislead the consumer.  If that comes in the form of ice, so be it.

Okay, let's look at it this way....if you purchase a shipping container (cardboard box) etc. Let's say that box is a box that hold 3 square feet of shit. BUT you are shipping something that only takes up 2 square feet the other space gets taken up by packing material.....



Did you get ripped off when you bought the 3 square foot box?

I don't see that as a comparable.  I see it as you buy a 3 sq. ft. container but can only use 2 sq.ft or it because the rest has space taken up by fucking ice.



In the case of a coffee, I'm not buying a cup. I'm buying a DRINK. (Or not buying a drink as it were because Starbucks has gross, overpriced coffee.)

In reality you are buying a cup that holds 10 ounces of something. In this case it's liquid. But if you add additional displacement to the liquid, that cup no longer holds 10 ounces of liquid.  It's the same with a shipping container. The container may hold 3 square feet of something but what that something is may not be what you are shipping.



Unfortunately no where does Starbucks say you get 10 ounces of liquid UNLESS you specify how the cup is to be filled. What it lists and tells the consumer is cup size, 10, 16, 24 ounces etc. This is where the fast food practice of just giving you an empty cup in a size of your choosing has merit. That way you the consumer are completely responsible for how you fill it and this ridiculous argument is avoided.

That's not entirely true.  Starbucks states on it's website how much actual "drink" their cups hold.  It states things like "All suggestions based on a Tall serving (12 fl oz / 355 ml)."

That's exactly right. They are serving you a cup that holds a specific amount of liquid, and it is perfectly capable of doing so. BUT, you as an educated consumer and a intelligent person has to recognize that in this case, ice displaces some of that liquid. That's just common sense.



Unfortunately the cost of doing business in the US has gotten to the point where you the business owner, needs to include the cost of doing business with dopes. mongos and greedy scumbags who look for any reason to exploit your business practices for their own gain.



We can argue this until we both drop but it doesn't change the fact that this lawsuit is an example of what is wrong with our civil court system.

[RW]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

Please put this legal principle into words, if you will.



It troubles me to hear people speak of anything that is "entrenched" in consumer protection, because consumer protection is quite a new addition to jurisprudence and very little of consumer protection is really what I consider settled law.



Why not?  Because we are playing here in the valley between Roman law and English law, or if you prefer...civil law vs. common law.  Slippery slopes abound.

Slippery slope my ass.  Truth has been a foundation in law for ages and the basis of consumer protection beyond dealing with contractual issues, is deception.  Business cannot deceive people for gain.  The legal question is whether or not Starbucks is deceiving customers using excessive ice in drinks to provide less drinkable product without disclosing this fact.



As I said, in other countries, Canada included, there are channels other than the lawsuits to investigate these issues.

I highly doubt ten ounce cups holding some ice instead of ten ounces of liquid was what consumer protection legislation had in mind.

I think it did actually.  It's meant to protect from practises that mislead the consumer.  If that comes in the form of ice, so be it.

Okay, let's look at it this way....if you purchase a shipping container (cardboard box) etc. Let's say that box is a box that hold 3 square feet of shit. BUT you are shipping something that only takes up 2 square feet the other space gets taken up by packing material.....



Did you get ripped off when you bought the 3 square foot box?

I don't see that as a comparable.  I see it as you buy a 3 sq. ft. container but can only use 2 sq.ft or it because the rest has space taken up by fucking ice.



In the case of a coffee, I'm not buying a cup. I'm buying a DRINK. (Or not buying a drink as it were because Starbucks has gross, overpriced coffee.)

In reality you are buying a cup that holds 10 ounces of something. In this case it's liquid. But if you add additional displacement to the liquid, that cup no longer holds 10 ounces of liquid.  It's the same with a shipping container. The container may hold 3 square feet of something but what that something is may not be what you are shipping.



Unfortunately no where does Starbucks say you get 10 ounces of liquid UNLESS you specify how the cup is to be filled. What it lists and tells the consumer is cup size, 10, 16, 24 ounces etc. This is where the fast food practice of just giving you an empty cup in a size of your choosing has merit. That way you the consumer are completely responsible for how you fill it and this ridiculous argument is avoided.

That's not entirely true.  Starbucks states on it's website how much actual "drink" their cups hold.  It states things like "All suggestions based on a Tall serving (12 fl oz / 355 ml)."

That's exactly right. They are serving you a cup that holds a specific amount of liquid, and it is perfectly capable of doing so. BUT, you as an educated consumer and a intelligent person has to recognize that in this case, ice displaces some of that liquid. That's just common sense.



Unfortunately the cost of doing business in the US has gotten to the point where you the business owner, needs to include the cost of doing business with dopes. mongos and greedy scumbags who look for any reason to exploit your business practices for their own gain.



We can argue this until we both drop but it doesn't change the fact that this lawsuit is an example of what is wrong with our civil court system.

Yes, ice displaces SOME of that liquid.  Should that SOME amount to damn near half or is that called being ripped off?



If I were Starbucks, I wouldn't pay a penny but I would consider making my iced coffee cups bigger to account for ice displacement so people don't feel ripped off.  I mean, they are already being ripped off in the sense that coffee has an obscene markup but let's not add insult to injury by putting it on an entire cup full of ice.



I do agree that this shouldn't be a lawsuit either.  There should be a consumer protection branch to deal with this because businesses should not be allowed to fuck people over.  Consumerism is a HUGE part of the economy and it's driven by people feeling they aren't being ripped off at every turn.

[keeper]

Maybe this lady needs to talk to that snippy bitch at Tim Hortons you deal with.

[RW]

Maybe this lady needs to talk to that snippy bitch at Tim Hortons you deal with.

Nobody wants to talk to that biatch!

[Anonymous]

That's exactly right. They are serving you a cup that holds a specific amount of liquid, and it is perfectly capable of doing so. BUT, you as an educated consumer and a intelligent person has to recognize that in this case, ice displaces some of that liquid. That's just common sense.



Unfortunately the cost of doing business in the US has gotten to the point where you the business owner, needs to include the cost of doing business with dopes. mongos and greedy scumbags who look for any reason to exploit your business practices for their own gain.



We can argue this until we both drop but it doesn't change the fact that this lawsuit is an example of what is wrong with our civil court system.

Aside from the tragedy in North East Alberta this has been the most talked about current event at work..



What you have written is exactly how we all feel about this silly lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

That's exactly right. They are serving you a cup that holds a specific amount of liquid, and it is perfectly capable of doing so. BUT, you as an educated consumer and a intelligent person has to recognize that in this case, ice displaces some of that liquid. That's just common sense.



Unfortunately the cost of doing business in the US has gotten to the point where you the business owner, needs to include the cost of doing business with dopes. mongos and greedy scumbags who look for any reason to exploit your business practices for their own gain.



We can argue this until we both drop but it doesn't change the fact that this lawsuit is an example of what is wrong with our civil court system.

Aside from the tragedy in North East Alberta this has been the most talked about current event at work..



What you have written is exactly how we all feel about this silly lawsuit.

It's ridiculous, what else can be said.

[Anonymous]

That's exactly right. They are serving you a cup that holds a specific amount of liquid, and it is perfectly capable of doing so. BUT, you as an educated consumer and a intelligent person has to recognize that in this case, ice displaces some of that liquid. That's just common sense.



Unfortunately the cost of doing business in the US has gotten to the point where you the business owner, needs to include the cost of doing business with dopes. mongos and greedy scumbags who look for any reason to exploit your business practices for their own gain.



We can argue this until we both drop but it doesn't change the fact that this lawsuit is an example of what is wrong with our civil court system.

Aside from the tragedy in North East Alberta this has been the most talked about current event at work..



What you have written is exactly how we all feel about this silly lawsuit.

It's ridiculous, what else can be said.

You're all right I suppose.  But I seem to be gut-hooked on RW's troll and determined to break it.  That's probably pretty stupid on my part.

[RW]

This reminds me a lot of the McDonald's coffee case where everyone had an opinion on it but no one understood the (legal) specifics of the case itself.



I guess unlike everyone else, I'm interested to see how the COURTS interpret consumer protections re: false advertising.



I also don't appreciate being called a troll because I acknowledge the legal principles at play in a case.

[Anonymous]

This reminds me a lot of the McDonald's coffee case where everyone had an opinion on it but no one understood the (legal) specifics of the case itself.



I guess unlike everyone else, I'm interested to see how the COURTS interpret consumer protections re: false advertising.



I also don't appreciate being called a troll because I acknowledge the legal principles at play in a case.

I used the term because I previously asked you to enunciate what "legal principles" were at play in this case, but if you did I evidently missed your answer.



I'm not "bear trapping" you.   Although I've had a few courses that were law-related, I never went to law school nor worked in the field.  Still, I'm not seeing any merit to the claim of false advertising here and I'm prepared to go on at some length about that.



Also, in Liebeck v McDonald's there was actually some merit to the case.  However, the reason for the big ass jury verdict wasn't really about the merits...it was about McD's being a bunch of dicks and not agreeing to a fair settlement, which forced the matter into court where they thought they had more lawyers and would prevail.  That's not a matter of truth or legal principles, it's a matter of too many MBA graduates running corporations.

[easter bunny]

I think there is a legitimate complaint here.  I think people should know what they are buying and if their coffee comes in 10 fl.oz less than what is advertised, they should be made aware of this so they can make the appropriate decisions when making purchases.

Without reading the whole thread I would have to agree. I've had it happen to me lots of times. You order a drink and get a cup of crushed ice with a few drops of liquid in it. Then to add insult to injury it's weak and flat (no carbonation). With no standards every franchise owner can do what he or she wants, and some of them clearly just want to screw people. I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe self-serve? Anyway, having said that, it ain't worth $100 million or whatever it is they're asking for, and it's not fair to punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few.

[Renee]

This reminds me a lot of the McDonald's coffee case where everyone had an opinion on it but no one understood the (legal) specifics of the case itself.



I guess unlike everyone else, I'm interested to see how the COURTS interpret consumer protections re: false advertising.



I also don't appreciate being called a troll because I acknowledge the legal principles at play in a case.

The McDonald's case was very different. The plaintiff sustained injury due to McDonald's unsafe practice of keeping their coffee at near boiling temperature levels.

[Anonymous]

I think there is a legitimate complaint here.  I think people should know what they are buying and if their coffee comes in 10 fl.oz less than what is advertised, they should be made aware of this so they can make the appropriate decisions when making purchases.

Without reading the whole thread I would have to agree. I've had it happen to me lots of times. You order a drink and get a cup of crushed ice with a few drops of liquid in it. Then to add insult to injury it's weak and flat (no carbonation). With no standards every franchise owner can do what he or she wants, and some of them clearly just want to screw people. I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe self-serve? Anyway, having said that, it ain't worth $100 million or whatever it is they're asking for, and it's not fair to punish everyone for the misdeeds of a few.

A ten ounce iced drink that has ice in it bunny. That is what this lawsuit is about.

[RW]

If the drink is already cold, why do they need an entire cup of ice to go with it?

[Anonymous]

If the drink is already cold, why do they need an entire cup of ice to go with it?

There are ice free drink at Starbucks. They are called coffee and tea.

[Anonymous]

I am a consumer and I support legislation that protects me from dishonest retailing practices. But, I do not see an iced drink having ice in it as scamming the public. I think most thinking people know ice will be part of the cup's content.