An Illinois woman is reportedly suing Starbucks for $5 million over the amount of ice it puts in customers’ drinks.

Stacy Pincus accuses the coffee chain of packing almost half of their cold beverages with ice as a means to skimp on serving actual coffee to customers, according to the suit obtained by Courthouse News.

When it comes to ordering a 24-ounce “Venti” coffee, for example, Pincus claims a customer only receives 14 ounces of actual coffee, and ice takes up the remaining 10. The miffed customer further notes that hot Starbucks beverages typically cost less than cold ones, even though they contain more coffee because of the lack of ice.

Among the accusations hurled at the coffee conglomerate are fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

Pincus expresses her intent to represent everyone who ever purchased a cold drink from the coffee chain over the last 10 years.

A Starbucks spokesperson, reached by TMZ, called the suit absurd.

“Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential component of any ‘iced’ beverage,” the spokesperson stated, adding that the company would remake any beverage if a customer is unsatisfied.

Starbucks did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/starbucks-sued-over-ice_us_5725fdeee4b0b49df6ab8f75?




the other 'entitled' group,, who sue for ridiculous amounts over things like how much ice is used in a drink

i don't think "entitlements" means what you think it means...

I used 'entitled


to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim

Contemporary Examples

I thought to myself, an employee who steals is not entitled to a raise.

I knew that someone here would post that.

i think the term is "frivolous lawsuits".. but i agree with what you're saying, it would be just as easy for that woman to go someplace else besides starbucks...

and also, she alone wouldn't be "entitled" to the money, everyone that's ever bought one should be entitled to a portion...

According to Courthouse News Service, the plaintiff is represented by by Steven Hart with Hart, McLaughlin & Eldridge in Chicago.

I thought that the plaintiff was represented by Dewey, Shaftem & Howe.

lol

I wondered what attorney would take this case too,,,,crazy times,,

My name is Hugo Montoya, you murdered my father.... Prepare to die!

1) If a customer KNOWS that they only get 14 ounces of coffee in an ice coffee instead of the 24 ounces of hot coffee in the "Venti" size why didn't they order hot coffee and ask for some ice?
2) If a customer KNOWS what they are getting how is it "unjust enrichment" by Starbucks?
3)Who doesn't know that every beverage at Starbucks is priced at a premium because the freaking cup says STARBUCKS?!?!?!
4)Since Pincus intends to represent everyone who has been defrauded does that mean sharing the $5 million with all those people?

I can't believe it took 10 years for someone to figure out Starbucks is a super "Star" at ripping off "Bucks".

cold waters.....Ha~~~~~~especialy these years Ha~~~~~million dolars Ha~~~~~~~good one Ha~~~~~~they don't even loading the NASA OFFICAL WEB SITE!!!! Ha~~~~~~ or maybe they don't know how to reading english Ha~~~~~~Bevie?Ha~~~~~~~~I need a cold head~Ha~~~~~~now we're not the most foolish people in this world~Ha~~~~~~~

This is certainly a common practice and not exclusive to Starbucks. How does McDonald's or Burger King sell hamburgers and fries for 99 cents? They charge twice as much for a soda containing 50% ice.

Instead of frivolous lawsuits its easier to just say "easy on the ice" as I say when getting my order.

not McDonalds, any size soda for a dollar... and it only costs them about 10 cents for the soda per cup...

The thing I don't get about these lawsuits is that these people are trying to force a big company to change how they do things... while still patronizing that company.

If you don't like how they do things, why are you still shopping there? And if you think they put too much ice in their iced drinks, then why are you buying those iced drinks?

I've seen this in the past with lawsuits against tech firms. I mean, its one thing if you bought a product and it was represented to be scratch resistant but it wasn't, or if it was represented to get good reception and it doesn't.... but otherwise there's no need to sue - just don't buy the product!

I agree with MsHarmony, I think that an "entitled" attitude is at play here. If you have an entitled attitude, you think its okay to force other people to do things your way.