“The best coffee for the best you.” Is this phrase an unsubstantiated marketing claim or non-actionable puffery? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that this and other Starbucks advertising statements fell into the category of puffery, which describes subjective claims that a reasonable consumer would not interpret as factual. Explore how consumer research is used to measure whether claims are puffery or not.
Case Facts
A plaintiff class alleged that several of Starbucks’ advertising claims were false or deceptive, including “The best coffee for the best you,” “Starbucks or nothing,” and “Heart, soul, craft, pride, love; you won’t find that in any other cup of coffee.” Plaintiffs argued that these slogans conflicted with the reported use of a pesticide, dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate, as pest control in certain Manhattan Starbucks stores.
According to the complaint, the use of a purportedly harmful pesticide rendered the Starbucks advertising misleading. A Manhattan district court, however, dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, finding, as the appellate court summarized, “that almost all of Starbucks’s statements referenced in the amended complaint constitute puffery.”
Ruling
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with the lower court that most of the Starbucks advertising statements were non-actionable puffery. Claims such as “The best coffee for the best you,” the court held, “only vaguely assert the superiority of Starbucks coffee” and are best understood as expressions of opinion rather than factual assertions.
Even statements referring to ingredients or sourcing practices did not, in the court’s view, imply anything about the use of pesticides in Starbucks stores. The court explained that the statements were limited to representations about how Starbucks coffee is prepared and sourced, as well as the quality of its ingredients--not its pest control practices.
Survey Research and Puffery Claims
Puffery can be a defense in false advertising disputes centering around the premise that reasonable consumers would not interpret a statement literally. However, advertisers should exercise caution: defendants sometimes assert puffery even when a claim could reasonably be interpreted as factual. When that happens, the defense can fail, and advertisers may face scrutiny for unsubstantiated or misleading claims.
The Starbucks case shows the distinction between subjective marketing language and objective advertising claims that require substantiation. Consumer surveys that create empirical evidence can help advertisers assess how audiences interpret messaging, minimizing litigation risk and providing evidence that may be useful in any challenge.
IMS Legal Strategies designs and conducts claim substantiation surveys and other consumer research to help advertisers enter campaigns confidently with reliable, court-ready evidence. Contact us to learn more.
