A venti Starbucks drink marketed as 'Sugar-Free' contains up to 21 grams of sugar — roughly five teaspoons — according to a proposed class-action lawsuit filed Oct. 2 in Seattle federal court.

The case targets eight protein beverages. Federal rules cap the 'Sugar-Free' label at 0.5 grams of sugar per serving. The lawsuit cites measured levels of 13 to 21 grams in venti sizes.

The drinks named in the suit include hot and iced versions of the Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Latte, Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Latte, Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Matcha and Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha. Starbucks attributes the sugar to lactose from milk and called the claims 'without merit' and said it intends to vigorously defend itself.

The complaint argues that a venti Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha holds 'almost as much total sugar as is contained in a standard KitKat bar.' It seeks unspecified damages and a court order barring the 'Sugar-Free' label on drinks containing sugar.

Why is the 'Sugar-Free' label a liability?

The lawsuit turns on a distinction brands often miss: total sugar versus added sugar. Starbucks discloses full nutrition facts on its app, website and in-store menus. The suit argues the product name itself is deceptive, regardless of the fine print.

Monica Smith, Principal at Integer, says companies facing lawsuits need legal, communications and operations teams aligned on facts. 'Each team brings a different perspective, but they need a shared understanding of the facts and how to explain them,' Smith says. 'Together, they can develop clear, consistent messaging that protects the company's legal position while preserving customer trust.'

Smith also flags employee-facing prep. 'Even with experienced legal and communications teams, a company can deliver a response that addresses the lawsuit but leaves the customer's underlying concern unanswered,' she says. 'The test is whether the response protects the legal position while giving people a clear, credible answer to the question they're actually asking.'

Pre-crisis groundwork matters most. 'A regular cadence of communication and clear protocols for sharing information, making decisions and approving messaging give those teams a foundation for responding quickly and consistently when legal and reputational risks intersect,' Smith says.

What happened to the NHL's romance campaign?

The NHL pulled all seven episodes of 'Hot for Hockey' — a Spotify audio series styled after hockey romance novels — within days of its launch last week. Players including Connor McDavid, Trevor Zegras and Mika Zibanejad featured in 30-to-90 second shorts.

Critics accused the league of mocking the female and 2SLGBTQ+ audiences it targeted. Romance author Emily Rath said she refused to participate, citing 'open mocking' and AI-generated covers. The NHL said the campaign was always meant as a one-week tie-in, though Sports Business Journal reported plans to roll out stories 'throughout the season.' The NHL declined to address the discrepancy.

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman acknowledged that data on new fans acquired through hockey romance is 'overwhelming.'

Jackie O'Keefe, President and Founder at Possible PR, says the league had the right instinct but misread the connection. 'Just because people love something adjacent to your brand doesn't mean they want that same experience from you,' O'Keefe says.

'Forcing the connection without authenticity can backfire,' she adds. 'It can ultimately have the opposite effect of what was intended, turning off the very audience you're trying to attract. Just because your product connects to something culturally relevant doesn't necessarily mean you have a credible role to play in it.'

What is the first-ever AI reputation warning?

For the fourth time in less than two years, AI has topped the Global Situation Room's Reputation Risk Index as the most serious reputational threat to corporations. This quarter, the Index's Global Risk Advisory Council escalated that finding with its first-ever formal 'Reputation Warning.'

The Index first flagged AI as a top risk at the start of 2025. Early concerns centered on consumers forming artificial relationships with brands, raising risks around privacy, safety and worker displacement.

'As AI is rapidly deployed for productivity gains, we have also seen diminishing public trust in the technology, elevating the need for businesses to take measures to protect their brands,' says Isabel Guzman, Chair of the Council. 'AI use or overuse can quickly damage a company's standing with customers, investors or other key stakeholders, making it essential for companies to deploy preventive tactics now.'

What should communicators do next?

The Council's recommended steps include:

• Avoid and remove artificially created content from public-facing platforms
• Publicly commit to human-generated content
• Bring humans back into automated customer service where frustration is highest
• Build infrastructure for verifying content that claims to come from the corporation or its executives

The escalation from advisory to formal warning signals the window for proactive AI reputation protection is closing. Communicators who lead that work now — rather than react after the next crisis — will own the narrative.