Under Pressure for Refreshers: Starbucks Is the Latest of Many Corporations Facing Class Action Suits for False Advertising

Consumers are familiar with being disappointed by a product not worth its price tag. Perhaps you discovered your expensive “100% extra virgin olive oil” was diluted with vegetable oil or that your “grass-fed” beef came from a grain-fed animal. Not long ago, I entered a Starbucks café and ordered a Strawberry Açai Refresher based on the açai fruit’s reputation as a “superfood.” Despite its name, the only trace of strawberry in the beverage is the freeze-dried strawberries sprinkled into it. There is zero trace of açai. The lack of fruits in Starbucks Refreshers is what the FDA refers to as “economically motivated adulteration” or “food fraud,” a practice that captures nearly $40 billion annually. This Comment examines FDA regulations and suggests that the FDA should ban companies from including certain foods in names and labels when the product does not actually contain any of the depicted fruit, or any fruit at all.

The Wisconsin Law Review Joins Coalition of Law Journals in Call for Compensation

The editors of this journal have come together with the editors of journals across the country to demand compensation for the work we do to publish legal scholarship. Our demand rests on one fundamental principle: Uncompensated labor is wrong. In the below, Journal Work Essay, we expand on this argument and present other important supporting principles.

Volume 2022, No. 6

Table of Contents Articles Enabling ESG Accountability: Focusing on the Corporate Enterprise by Rachel Brewster This Article examines how a governance aspect of ESG—corporate enterprise law—creates social and environmental concerns through three lenses: (1) limited …