Washington
A lawsuit accuses Starbucks of mislabeling 8 ‘sugar-free’ protein drinks
Starbucks is facing a consumer lawsuit over claims that the protein drinks labeled “sugar-free” on its cafe menus may actually contain more sugar than a Reese’s peanut butter cup.
The federal lawsuit filed late Friday in Seattle alleges that eight protein beverages Starbucks sells in the U.S. contain varying amounts of sugar even though the company lists them as sugarless.
On Monday, the menu on Starbucks’ U.S. website listed a 16-ounce (0.5-liter) Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha with 16 grams of sugar and a 20-ounce (0.6-liter) version of the same drink with 21 grams of sugar. By comparison, one Reese’s cup has 11 grams of sugar.
Hagens Berman, a law firm that specializes in class action cases, filed the suit on behalf of three individual consumers who bought Starbucks’ sugar-free protein drinks in California, New York and Washington.
“Consumers avoid sugar for various reasons, whether that be general health, diabetes and blood glucose levels or other factors, and for many, a staunch mislabeling like this is significant,” said Steve Berman, a co-founder and managing partner of the Seattle-headquartered firm.
The plaintiffs contend that Starbucks’ naming and marketing of sugar-free products is “false, deceptive and unlawful” and that the company violated federal labeling regulations.
Seattle-based Starbucks said the sugar in its protein drinks comes from the protein-boosted milk it uses. The company said it doesn’t add sugar to the drinks and it uses sugar-free syrup for flavoring.
On Starbucks’ website Monday, the drinks were marketed as “sugar-free,” but the company also clearly stated the amount of sugar in each beverage and that they were made without added sugar.
“We believe these claims have no merit,” a Starbucks spokesperson said Monday. “Starbucks has consistently and clearly provided information about its protein beverages, sugar-free options, customization choices and nutritional content across product announcements, menus, marketing materials, Starbucks.com and the Starbucks app, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”
Starbucks introduced its protein drinks in September 2025 to meet consumer demand for functional beverages and catch up to rivals like Dutch Bros, which launched protein-enhanced coffee drinks in 2024.
Dutch Bros also offers a lower-sugar version of its caramel-flavored Hopscotch Protein Latte, but it’s advertised as the Hopscotch Zero Sugar Added Protein Latte. The 16-ounce (0.5-liter) iced version has 7 grams of sugar and 11 grams of protein. By comparison, a 16-ounce (0.5-liter) iced Starbucks Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Latte has 9 grams of sugar and 29 grams of protein.
The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of U.S. consumers who bought the drinks. It also wants the court to order Starbucks to stop using the label “sugar-free” on products that contain sugar.
California
Doctors, insurers sue Newsom over health insurance premium increases
Doctors and health insurers filed a lawsuit Friday alleging Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature violated the law when they approved a healthcare tax that could substantially increase insurance premiums for Californians.
The lawsuit claims the recently passed tax on health plans, known as the managed care organization tax or MCO tax, circumvents a 2024 initiative that limits healthcare taxes and directs revenue toward specific purposes. The California Medical Association and California Association of Health Plans filed the complaint with the California Supreme Court.
“California voters passed Proposition 35 and made it law. The state does not get to ignore that law simply because following the law is inconvenient,” medical association CEO Dustin Corcoran said in a statement.
Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the tax allows the state to make changes to fund healthcare. “The state disagrees with their claims, and we believe the courts will too,” Gallegos said in an email.
H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the Department of Finance, said in a previous statement to CalMatters that the state wanted to balance the affordability concerns of privately insured patients against large-scale federal Medi-Cal cuts.
Newsom stopped short of opposing the 2024 initiative when it was on the ballot, but he warned at the time it would “hamstring” the state budget.
For more than 20 years, California has levied taxes on health insurers to help fund Medi-Cal, the state’s insurance program for low-income people. The state historically taxed private health plans at a lower rate than Medi-Cal insurers, but in June, the Legislature passed a bill substantially raising the tax on private plans.
Health insurers said they will pass the cost directly on to consumers, spiking premiums by about $100 per person each year. That means a family of four could pay a $400 annual increase. That would come on top of the rate increases people typically see year to year.
“California is breaking the law by blowing through a tax limit voters put in place to protect Californians and businesses from higher health care costs,” said Charles Bacchi, CEO of the health plans association.
Doctors, hospitals, clinics and Medi-Cal insurers have argued for many years that the revenue from the tax should go toward improving Medi-Cal. They said that the state was inappropriately using the money to replace general fund spending, and that many providers were being paid far less than their services cost. In 2024, they asked voters to approve a limited tax that would be reserved for Medi-Cal improvements.
But Congress last year changed the rules on taxes used to generate revenue for healthcare, including the ones imposed on health plans. Rather than lose the money generated by the tax, Newsom proposed and the Legislature agreed to submit two taxes to the federal government for approval: one that complied with the 2024 initiative but would be rejected by the feds, and one that complied with federal regulations and largely disregarded the initiative.
Illinois
Woman charged with first-degree murder in fatal stabbing of 7-year-old girl
CHICAGO (AP) — A woman has been charged with murder for allegedly stabbing to death a 7-year-old girl who was walking along a sidewalk in a Chicago neighborhood, police said.
Shavon Gayden, 48, was charged with one felony count of first-degree murder in connection with the death, Chicago police said in a statement Sunday.
Police said the girl was walking in the Chatham neighborhood Saturday morning when a woman carrying an unspecified sharp object approached her and stabbed her multiple times in the back. Bystanders chased after the woman and detained her, police said. Television networks showed a commercial strip lined with a restaurant, a nail salon and a market cordoned off by police tape afterward.
Gayden, who is from Chicago, was initially scheduled to appear for a hearing Monday morning but was hospitalized and was not going to appear, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office said in an email. Her injuries were not considered life-threatening.
The Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office identified the child as Edi Mari Hernandez Chacon. She was pronounced dead at Comer Children’s Hospital.
A security photo from a nearby business showed the girl walking hand in hand with an older female when she was attacked, WLS-TV reported.
It was not immediately clear if there was any relationship between the attacker and the girl. Police have not commented on a possible motive for the stabbing and declined Sunday to provide further details.
Attempts to reach members of Gayden’s family by phone were unsuccessful. Matthew Hendrickson, press secretary for the Cook County Public Defender, said that the office was assigned to Gayden at a hearing Monday but declined to comment further.
In a GoFundMe post to raise funds for a funeral, the girl’s uncle, Richard Hernandez Chacon, wrote that Edi Mari’s “passing leaves an indescribable void and profound grief in all of us who loved her.”
Messages left with Hernandez Chacon and another person believed to be a family member were not immediately returned.
Massachusetts
Court weighs judge’s authority to restore funding cuts to Harvard
BOSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court heard opposing arguments Monday over whether a judge had the authority to restore billions of dollars in funding that the Trump administration cut from Harvard University.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled last year that the cuts amounted to illegal retaliation for Harvard’s rejection of the administration’s demands for changes to Harvard’s governance and policies.
The government had tied the move to Harvard’s delays in dealing with antisemitism, but the judge said the university’s federally backed research had little connection to discrimination against Jews.
The ruling restored more than $2.6 billion in research funding for the wealthy Ivy League school.
Though the money has resumed flowing, a Justice Department attorney told a three-judge panel of the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday that Burroughs lacked the legal power to require the administration to pay it.
The fight over the money was a contractual dispute that rightly belonged in a different court: the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, DOJ attorney Michael Velchik said. That court, which traces its origins to the mid-1800s, handles lawsuits by citizens seeking money from the federal government.
“The problem is that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order specific performance,” Velchik told the First Circuit. “That is the only thing that we’re complaining about here.”
Velchik cited recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings in support of his argument.
Paul Clement, an attorney for Harvard, said the case was not a straightforward contractual dispute, but raised broader issues of retaliation and discrimination. The district court’s decision restoring the funding was the “perfect remedy” for the violations it found, he said.
“These are not claims that really depend on the contract in any particular way,” he said.
First Circuit Judge Joshua Dunlap, a nominee of President Donald Trump, pressed Clement on whether Burroughs had in effect issued an order requiring payment and whether Harvard could make its broader legal claims without a contract.
The other judges on the panel, Sandra Lynch and Gustavo Gelpi, were nominated by Democratic presidents. The judges did not immediately rule.
Harvard’s lawsuit accused the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in a letter from a federal antisemitism task force.
The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. It was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus.
The administration also has sought to prevent Harvard from hosting foreign students and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status in a clash watched widely across higher education.
During Monday’s arguments, Lynch expressed skepticism of the administration’s claim that Harvard had been indifferent to antisemitism.
“There are no findings. There was no investigation. There was simply an announcement, ‘We’re terminating against that backdrop,’” she said.
It appeared the administration “didn’t want to have to cope with what the law and the facts of this case presented,” the judge added.
A lawsuit accuses Starbucks of mislabeling 8 ‘sugar-free’ protein drinks
Starbucks is facing a consumer lawsuit over claims that the protein drinks labeled “sugar-free” on its cafe menus may actually contain more sugar than a Reese’s peanut butter cup.
The federal lawsuit filed late Friday in Seattle alleges that eight protein beverages Starbucks sells in the U.S. contain varying amounts of sugar even though the company lists them as sugarless.
On Monday, the menu on Starbucks’ U.S. website listed a 16-ounce (0.5-liter) Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha with 16 grams of sugar and a 20-ounce (0.6-liter) version of the same drink with 21 grams of sugar. By comparison, one Reese’s cup has 11 grams of sugar.
Hagens Berman, a law firm that specializes in class action cases, filed the suit on behalf of three individual consumers who bought Starbucks’ sugar-free protein drinks in California, New York and Washington.
“Consumers avoid sugar for various reasons, whether that be general health, diabetes and blood glucose levels or other factors, and for many, a staunch mislabeling like this is significant,” said Steve Berman, a co-founder and managing partner of the Seattle-headquartered firm.
The plaintiffs contend that Starbucks’ naming and marketing of sugar-free products is “false, deceptive and unlawful” and that the company violated federal labeling regulations.
Seattle-based Starbucks said the sugar in its protein drinks comes from the protein-boosted milk it uses. The company said it doesn’t add sugar to the drinks and it uses sugar-free syrup for flavoring.
On Starbucks’ website Monday, the drinks were marketed as “sugar-free,” but the company also clearly stated the amount of sugar in each beverage and that they were made without added sugar.
“We believe these claims have no merit,” a Starbucks spokesperson said Monday. “Starbucks has consistently and clearly provided information about its protein beverages, sugar-free options, customization choices and nutritional content across product announcements, menus, marketing materials, Starbucks.com and the Starbucks app, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”
Starbucks introduced its protein drinks in September 2025 to meet consumer demand for functional beverages and catch up to rivals like Dutch Bros, which launched protein-enhanced coffee drinks in 2024.
Dutch Bros also offers a lower-sugar version of its caramel-flavored Hopscotch Protein Latte, but it’s advertised as the Hopscotch Zero Sugar Added Protein Latte. The 16-ounce (0.5-liter) iced version has 7 grams of sugar and 11 grams of protein. By comparison, a 16-ounce (0.5-liter) iced Starbucks Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Latte has 9 grams of sugar and 29 grams of protein.
The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of U.S. consumers who bought the drinks. It also wants the court to order Starbucks to stop using the label “sugar-free” on products that contain sugar.
California
Doctors, insurers sue Newsom over health insurance premium increases
Doctors and health insurers filed a lawsuit Friday alleging Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature violated the law when they approved a healthcare tax that could substantially increase insurance premiums for Californians.
The lawsuit claims the recently passed tax on health plans, known as the managed care organization tax or MCO tax, circumvents a 2024 initiative that limits healthcare taxes and directs revenue toward specific purposes. The California Medical Association and California Association of Health Plans filed the complaint with the California Supreme Court.
“California voters passed Proposition 35 and made it law. The state does not get to ignore that law simply because following the law is inconvenient,” medical association CEO Dustin Corcoran said in a statement.
Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the tax allows the state to make changes to fund healthcare. “The state disagrees with their claims, and we believe the courts will too,” Gallegos said in an email.
H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the Department of Finance, said in a previous statement to CalMatters that the state wanted to balance the affordability concerns of privately insured patients against large-scale federal Medi-Cal cuts.
Newsom stopped short of opposing the 2024 initiative when it was on the ballot, but he warned at the time it would “hamstring” the state budget.
For more than 20 years, California has levied taxes on health insurers to help fund Medi-Cal, the state’s insurance program for low-income people. The state historically taxed private health plans at a lower rate than Medi-Cal insurers, but in June, the Legislature passed a bill substantially raising the tax on private plans.
Health insurers said they will pass the cost directly on to consumers, spiking premiums by about $100 per person each year. That means a family of four could pay a $400 annual increase. That would come on top of the rate increases people typically see year to year.
“California is breaking the law by blowing through a tax limit voters put in place to protect Californians and businesses from higher health care costs,” said Charles Bacchi, CEO of the health plans association.
Doctors, hospitals, clinics and Medi-Cal insurers have argued for many years that the revenue from the tax should go toward improving Medi-Cal. They said that the state was inappropriately using the money to replace general fund spending, and that many providers were being paid far less than their services cost. In 2024, they asked voters to approve a limited tax that would be reserved for Medi-Cal improvements.
But Congress last year changed the rules on taxes used to generate revenue for healthcare, including the ones imposed on health plans. Rather than lose the money generated by the tax, Newsom proposed and the Legislature agreed to submit two taxes to the federal government for approval: one that complied with the 2024 initiative but would be rejected by the feds, and one that complied with federal regulations and largely disregarded the initiative.
Illinois
Woman charged with first-degree murder in fatal stabbing of 7-year-old girl
CHICAGO (AP) — A woman has been charged with murder for allegedly stabbing to death a 7-year-old girl who was walking along a sidewalk in a Chicago neighborhood, police said.
Shavon Gayden, 48, was charged with one felony count of first-degree murder in connection with the death, Chicago police said in a statement Sunday.
Police said the girl was walking in the Chatham neighborhood Saturday morning when a woman carrying an unspecified sharp object approached her and stabbed her multiple times in the back. Bystanders chased after the woman and detained her, police said. Television networks showed a commercial strip lined with a restaurant, a nail salon and a market cordoned off by police tape afterward.
Gayden, who is from Chicago, was initially scheduled to appear for a hearing Monday morning but was hospitalized and was not going to appear, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office said in an email. Her injuries were not considered life-threatening.
The Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office identified the child as Edi Mari Hernandez Chacon. She was pronounced dead at Comer Children’s Hospital.
A security photo from a nearby business showed the girl walking hand in hand with an older female when she was attacked, WLS-TV reported.
It was not immediately clear if there was any relationship between the attacker and the girl. Police have not commented on a possible motive for the stabbing and declined Sunday to provide further details.
Attempts to reach members of Gayden’s family by phone were unsuccessful. Matthew Hendrickson, press secretary for the Cook County Public Defender, said that the office was assigned to Gayden at a hearing Monday but declined to comment further.
In a GoFundMe post to raise funds for a funeral, the girl’s uncle, Richard Hernandez Chacon, wrote that Edi Mari’s “passing leaves an indescribable void and profound grief in all of us who loved her.”
Messages left with Hernandez Chacon and another person believed to be a family member were not immediately returned.
Massachusetts
Court weighs judge’s authority to restore funding cuts to Harvard
BOSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court heard opposing arguments Monday over whether a judge had the authority to restore billions of dollars in funding that the Trump administration cut from Harvard University.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled last year that the cuts amounted to illegal retaliation for Harvard’s rejection of the administration’s demands for changes to Harvard’s governance and policies.
The government had tied the move to Harvard’s delays in dealing with antisemitism, but the judge said the university’s federally backed research had little connection to discrimination against Jews.
The ruling restored more than $2.6 billion in research funding for the wealthy Ivy League school.
Though the money has resumed flowing, a Justice Department attorney told a three-judge panel of the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday that Burroughs lacked the legal power to require the administration to pay it.
The fight over the money was a contractual dispute that rightly belonged in a different court: the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, DOJ attorney Michael Velchik said. That court, which traces its origins to the mid-1800s, handles lawsuits by citizens seeking money from the federal government.
“The problem is that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order specific performance,” Velchik told the First Circuit. “That is the only thing that we’re complaining about here.”
Velchik cited recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings in support of his argument.
Paul Clement, an attorney for Harvard, said the case was not a straightforward contractual dispute, but raised broader issues of retaliation and discrimination. The district court’s decision restoring the funding was the “perfect remedy” for the violations it found, he said.
“These are not claims that really depend on the contract in any particular way,” he said.
First Circuit Judge Joshua Dunlap, a nominee of President Donald Trump, pressed Clement on whether Burroughs had in effect issued an order requiring payment and whether Harvard could make its broader legal claims without a contract.
The other judges on the panel, Sandra Lynch and Gustavo Gelpi, were nominated by Democratic presidents. The judges did not immediately rule.
Harvard’s lawsuit accused the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in a letter from a federal antisemitism task force.
The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. It was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus.
The administration also has sought to prevent Harvard from hosting foreign students and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status in a clash watched widely across higher education.
During Monday’s arguments, Lynch expressed skepticism of the administration’s claim that Harvard had been indifferent to antisemitism.
“There are no findings. There was no investigation. There was simply an announcement, ‘We’re terminating against that backdrop,’” she said.
It appeared the administration “didn’t want to have to cope with what the law and the facts of this case presented,” the judge added.
