America just took a firm step toward a safer, more just society. Through the precise, logical application of the rule of law, a public health issue was finally addressed and we can all breathe easier. Finally, our government acted on behalf of the will of the people.
I’m not talking about common-sense laws designed to prevent terrorists and criminals from purchasing automatic weapons – those measures failed in a Senate vote on Monday. I’m talking about the false advertising lawsuit levied against the fat cats at Starbucks.
The Seattle-based caffeine peddler has been sued in numerous states over under-filled lattes. In a cost-saving maneuver, Starbucks has been giving its customers up to 25% less latte than expected. On Friday, a federal judge in California upheld the plaintiffs’ right to sue over their deficient beverages. If all goes well, we’ll get 25% more hot brown swill to get us through another 12 hours of drudgery. Another class-action suit currently pending against Starbucks involves customers furious that baristas are giving them too much ice in their cold drinks.
Americans seem to think it’s their god-given right to purchase a latte with the advertised amount of liquid in it. I’ll give you my Starbucks when you pry it from my cold, dead hands and all that. I certainly can’t even begin to load my AR-15 until I’ve had my first cup of java in the morning. What’s more American than firing off a few rounds while sipping a pumpkin spice latte?
It’s curious what people feel is a betrayal of the public trust, and what isn’t. A background check loophole might not get you out of bed to fight, and maybe Donald Trump is a neon-colored pervert that you just kind of like anyway because it was funny when he made the meme with the taco bowl. But if Starbucks starts lying to you, who can you really trust? What is society without a transparent, forthcoming coffee franchise?
The braintrust in Seattle is surely annoyed at all of this, but part of them must also feel flattered: people are so hooked on Starbucks coffee that they’ll go through the hellish process of suing them to get more.
One plaintiff “saw the representation on Starbucks’ menu that her Grande-sized Starbucks Lattes would be ‘16 fl oz’ prior to and at the time of purchase, and understood this to be a representation and warranty that her Lattes would, in fact, contain 16 fluid ounces ... she would not have purchased Grande-sized Starbucks Lattes on the same terms if she had known that they were not, in fact, 16 fluid ounces.”
Did it ever occur to the plaintiffs that there are other coffee shops besides Starbucks? Wouldn’t the solution to this problem be to simply stop going to Starbucks rather than blowing the whistle on the silliest conspiracy in the history of humankind? Perhaps they’ve heard of the magic of the in-home coffee maker. If you make your own coffee, you can have 16oz, 20oz, a liter. Really, you can have as much coffee as you want for less money. No, there’s really no catch. Also, you don’t have to listen to Paul McCartney or watch some guy work on his screenplay if you stay home.
In the complaint, there’s actually a diagram and step-by-step instructions explaining in detail how a Starbucks latte is made. This isn’t like making your own Sprite or a dirty bomb, people. It’s milk and coffee. With a bit of practice, you could be your own barista, without the constant indignity of walking around in a garish green apron and a baseball hat while dragging a filthy broom behind you during “3pm junkie check” in the men’s bathroom.
What’s truly appalling is how grim this complaint reads to the casual observer. This is not an experimental cancer drug we’re talking about here, and yet the language used makes it out to be a vital issue of national security. Even if I get all 16oz in my grande-sized cup, it’s still not actually worth what I’m paying for it, which is the most damning thing you could say about Starbucks.
But that’s not the crux of the argument: it’s that, believe this or not, things like Starbucks are a luxury, not a necessity. Somehow, it’s taken on far more importance, either due to brand loyalty, ubiquity of the product, or just plain apathy. My pet theory is choice number three.
Maybe you could say that Starbucks is taking advantage of my laziness or inability to process information before drinking coffee in the morning, but that’s my fault. It’s my fault for mindlessly purchasing a $5 latte every day without considering why I’m even doing it in the first place. It just is. I don’t even notice if my coffees are under-filled, so I suppose I should thank these brave souls rather than condemning them for working toward a truly inane goal. Thanks for saving Starbucks, folks. You have the gratitude of a grateful nation.
It’s just a shame that we expect more concern for the customer from the people who make our coffee than the people who make our guns.
