GIMME MY MILLION$$..!!
Posted on 05/01/2016 7:13:42 PM PDT by ConservativeStatement
Coffee conglomerate Starbucks is being sued for $5 million over the amount of ice the drink-maker puts in its iced beverages.
According to The Telegraph, Stacy Pincus filed a 29-page complaint in Northern Illinois Federal Court in Chicago last week. Pincus alleges that Starbucks customers are being misled because the company’s iced drinks contain just over half the drink they are paying for.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yeah, I noticed. It ticks me off.
GIMME MY MILLION$$..!!
OMG. This had better be thrown out. Ridiculous
That one was insane. A 2x has been 1.5” for decades.
And I know guys who claim their six inches are actually a foot.
;^)
CC
Cant you just order it without ICE?
“2x4” is the size of the board when cut from the log. after drying (air or kiln) the boards are planned (”surfaced four sides” - S4S) which yields the final 1.5” by 3.5” dimensions.
It’s been that way for ages. Think Gross vs Net. No shady marketing, just realistic manufacturing.
I imagine the ice makes it an iced beverage. Probably best to just say “Little ice” but it seems she is suing on behalf of the drinkers of the beverage.
Excellent.
The moment Starbucks changes it for her, other people will suw for the change.
I love ice. It’s my favorite part of drinking a Coke.
Does anyone know of a good lawyer so I can sue the bastards?
Opened a box of anything lately? There is always a disclaimer on the box indicating that “some settling may have occurred”. Opened a brand new box of bite sized shredded wheat - less than half full. More than “some settling”. There is no truth in packaging any more.
And what’s up with those potato chip bags that are only half full of chips? Bout time we started to address the real issues in this country.
“if she doesn’t like the recipe for the drink, just don’t buy it.”
****************
I’ve only read about the suit here but I suspect it has much more to do with how the beverage is sold and marketed than anything... if it is a 12oz beverage then the liquid should be 12 ounces exclusive of the ice...
I know of a suit against a pizza chain ,, and all 3 majors (Dominos , Pizza Hut , Papa Johns) did the same thing... where if you ordered “double” of a topping you only got about 1.5 times the amount and not 2x the amount... In that case “double” did them in because although you paid the same money for each additional topping ,, you didn’t get the value you were lead to believe you should get...
Candy in 6 and now 5 packs. I remember 10 and 8 packs.
Ice cube shapes produced by commercial ice machines were always designed for “maximum displacement” of the beverage.
Been that way for eons.
Yes, I’ve seen it, too. They need to be taught a hard lesson that shorting customers is bad for business!
I'm sure it will be. Starbucks has never, to my knowledge, indicated the ice content of its iced beverages, so what promise, agreement or covenant does this shyster think they're violating?
Stupid. Just ask for less ice, or no ice. I’m not really sure how you can have an iced beverage without ice. Guess that would give the vultures something else to sue over.
Any judge that allows this suit to go forward should be removed from his position, and the lawyers who brought the suit should be disbarred.
It’s been that way for ages. Think Gross vs Net. No shady marketing, just realistic manufacturing.
You are too young to remember this, but way back when, a finished 2 x 4 was really 2" x 4" , and the mills made the rough cut ones larger to accommodate for the material removed in final finishing.
The current sizes really are shady marketing, but it is 50+ year old shady marketing and everyone has gotten used to it. Shorting the consumer is not a modern invention. The Old Testament specifically forbids it, so it has been around for a long time. Deuteronomy 25:13.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.