Dream - Every seller must ensure that their products are in accordance with the information from their promotions. Don't let small mistakes end up in big losses. This is what happened when a buyer from Queens, New York named Joan Kominis sued Starbucks for selling a fruit drink without fruit. The lawsuit was filed in August 2022. According to the New York Post, this woman was angry after finding out that the Strawberry Acai Lemonade Refresher drink she bought from Starbucks did not contain real acai.

Acai is a berry fruit like juicy porridge that is often used in drinks or eaten raw and is produced from plants that grow abundantly in the tropical rainforests of Central and South America. Joan is demanding compensation of more than US$5 million (around Rp77 billion), with claims related to a number of other beverages sold by Starbucks. Court documents filed by Joan state that "without the knowledge of consumers, Mango Dragonfruit and Mango Dragonfruit Lemonade Refreshers do not contain mango, Pineapple Passionfruit and Pineapple Passionfruit Lemonade Refreshers do not contain passionfruit, and Strawberry Acai and Strawberry Acai Lemonade Refreshers do not contain acai."

In the original submission, Joan Kominis claimed that she bought a Starbucks drink in late 2021, believing that she would consume healthy acai. The lawsuit states that acai berries and juice are known to provide benefits to heart health, cognitive function, and have anti-cancer properties. However, the drink consists only of water, grape juice concentrate, and sugar. "If she had known that the product does not contain acai, she would not have purchased it or would have paid less," according to the document.

The price of the drink reaches US$5, and the lawsuit states that customers are willing to pay more because they believe that the ingredients provide nutritional benefits. Starbucks itself responded that the lawsuit is inaccurate and unfounded. "The allegations in the complaint are inaccurate and unfounded," said a Starbucks spokesperson in a statement after this week's decision. "We hope to defend ourselves against these claims."

The following is the translation of the given 'Bahasa' text to 'English' while preserving any html tags: "The New York-based lawyer, Spencer Sheehan, told The Post that there will be more companies facing legal action due to deceptive product descriptions. "When a company implies that a product contains a certain type of ingredient and it turns out not to, legal action is something they should expect," he said."

However, Starbucks argues that the fruits mentioned in the names of these refreshing drinks should only be used to describe the taste and not the ingredients of the drinks. Cronan himself disagrees and writes in his decision: "There is no evidence before the Court to show that 'mango', 'passion fruit', and 'açaí' are terms that are commonly understood to represent taste without representing the ingredients."