Starbucks sued for $114 million over canceled free-drink coupon

Attorney Peter Sullivan sued on behalf of Kelly Coakley, a 23-year-old Starbucks regular who felt "betrayed" when her coupon wasn't honored. The lawyer accuses the company of fraud and says he'll request class-action status to include the "thousands who were misled" by the free-drink offer, which Starbucks intended to go to a limited number of employees and their friends. (Associated Press)

Comments

[AnnoyedBarista]

Crap like this is unnecessary.. There *WAS* a barista need-to-know going around telling people to ACCEPT the coupon and INFORM the customer that it wouldn't be accepted anymore. This rumor that they weren't to be accepted was only for people who "read the sign."

"For any customers who have not had the opportunity to see the register sign, please "Just Say Yes" and honor the coupon anyway, taking the time to inform them that it cannot be accepted anymore."

Then again, the case won't go anywhere. If I forge a coupon for free legal service and the lawyer refuses to honour it, then it's pretty much the same boat. They're presenting a coupon that NEVER EXISTED in the first place to be honoured.

Still. Dumb mistake.

[ex coffee wench]

oh please.... what trauma can not honoring her coupon cause? not 114$ million

[Bess]

I'm more offended that Starbucks would secretly honor the coupon for those people who didn't read, or chose to ignore the sign, than that they canceled a coupon.

Never the less, the law suit is just plain stupid, Mr. Sullivan obviously needs to get a life.

[coffeeguy]

This lawsuit is so bogus. Internet coupons are usually almost never accepted anywhere nowadays.

[matthew]

What an imbecile.

[corianderstem]

If this girl feels betrayed by this, I'd hate to see her reaction if her significant other cheats on her. How much do you think she'd sue for then? A trillion bajillion eleventy-million dollars!!!

[nycbearista]

>>The $114 million the lawsuit asks for approximates the average cost of one cup of Starbucks coffee a day for all of the people turned away for the 38 days the offer was valid, Sullivan explained. "That's a very conservative figure," he said.

He did not explain how they determined how many people had tried to redeem the coupon.

HEH HEH - like to see how he plans on finding all of those people and giving each and every one of them their money back - or is he just going to give it all to the poor regular who feels so betrayed?

[Andrew]

Afte some quick caculations I figured that this attourny thinks that between 5%-10% of Starbucks customers felt betrayed becuase of this offer. That is assuming that every customer of Starbucks recieved it and knew about it.

Didn't Starbucks already just give every customer either $5 or $15 (more than the cost of one drink) as a reload on their Starbucks card? I think this issue is already moot. (Starbucks' average ticket is around $4.04 according to Forbes.com)

If I were the judge for this case I would take away this attorney's license to practice law. And hammer the kid with the legal costs incured by Starbucks.

[Scorpio370]

Oh brother...what next..."You made my drink wrong, I'll sue for 114 million dollars!"

The lady and the lawyer need to get an f'ing life. Why is it she's the one getting the money? Why not get all the people who were turned away in on the suit, then she'd get what...*thinks* about a dollar? LOL what a moron.

[SBUXGUY97]

This is an attempt to get rich quick that is so obvious it's completely disgusting. It's not even an expired legitimate coupon. it's a fraudulently produced coupon! If they win it will be a sad day in the justice system.

[James the Barista]

Do you guys understand who this fool is trying to sue? Starbucks, the company with a bigger legal team then Microsoft. So, this fool who is trying to sue can have a fun time with that...we treat our customers like mini-gods anyways...

[Deusx]

They were gambling on an out of court settlement, betcha.

[MIke Williams]

This lawsuit is symptomatice of our culture of not taking responsibility for anything. I think Starbucks should tie this lady to a dunking stool and dunk her in boiling hot coffee till her skin falls off.

How's that for betrayal?

---loyal customer

[formerly "anon"]

Mike,
Don't get me wrong, this is definitely a frivolous lawsuit, but to suggest this customer be punished severely is ridiculous. But considering what kind of company Starbucks is, not what they CLAIM to be, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually "tie this lady to a dunking stool and dunk her in boiling hot coffee till her skin falls off."

[Lou Sussler]

"they felt let down and angry."

Last time I checked, this wasn't actionable. He's suing for fraud which is very difficult to prove. He has to prove that SB INTENTIONALLY caused the coupons to be distributed with the PRIOR KNOWLEDGE that they wouldn't be honored.

First, that is almost impossible to prove and second, from what we've read, it's not true.

Just a sleazy lawyer looking for a quick payday.

[fuller]

As a law student, I can tell you that it's a pretty common technique to put an absurdly high figure in the pleading in hopes of generating press coverage to put pressure on the defendant to settle ('Starbucks doesn't honor coupons, angry customers sue company for ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLARS!'). No competent lawyer would ever think that you could get anything near that figure from such a claim.

Sleaze of this particular lawyer aside, there will probably be nothing quick about this payday.

Fraud seems like a stretch ... I'd guess he might also be suing for breach of contract.

I don't understand. Why is the coupon considered fraudulent?

[M.J. Feelgud]

This is what is wrong with America now. What is being betrayed worth? Nothing, because no amount of money can make you feel unbetrayed.

And Kelly Coakley is really stupid. Doesn't she know that if ever she wins her lawsuit, she'll get $4 in Starbucks coupons and the lawyer will get $50 million? If they for some stupid reason they ever won, then the lawyer should get $50 million in Starbucks coupons.

[Boston Starbucks Rebel]

That is true. They should just give them Starbucks card for that amount so we will ultimately get our money back. Genius!

[Jimmy Chang from NYC]

"I'm offeneded, I'm put out, this is just so not right, this is fraud!"

What this person needs is a quick slap across the face. A moron looking for attention.

What a waste of time this fool is. Get a life and suck it up dumb***!

[cornfrost]

This guy is a slip-and-fall lawyer. He was the lawyer for a nightclub called Twilo where people died of drug overdoses.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901E6DE1330F933A15757C0A9679C8B63&sec=health&pagewanted=print

[Theolaxor]

i think all she should get is a service recovery coupon to replace her other free drink coupon--thats it

[headache]

At least she stands for something! You are all missing the big picture...it starts here, whats next revoking your tax return. Thats right Kelly Coakley DAMN THE MAN!!!!!!

[nycbearista]

RE: Damn the Man.

well i look at it this way. In order to get the benefits I and my family need, as a middle aged ex-performer who never went to college and thus has few marketable skills, I need to work for the 'man'. Now as 'Men' go, Starbucks is definitely one of the better ones.

[recoveringattorney]

There may, in fact, be a colorable claim here. SB *did* distribute coupons that had an eligible date range for redemption. They made a gross error in distribution (an apparent failure to understand *how* email functionally works) which resulted in a much broader distribution than they originally intended. They then made the unilateral decision to refuse their own coupons prior to the end of the "useful life" of the coupon(s). There would appear, at first blush, to be a false advertising clair...fraud is a bit of a stretch. The class status and dollar value sought is clearly tactical...but again, colorable. Personally, I think SB should be punished...simply for thier stunning display of incompetence as to the distribution of the coupons in the first place...but that's just me.

[HopkinsBella]

WTF? Simply, inexpressibly stupid.

[DT]

recoveringattorney

what about the fact that the coupons were modified from the original before being redistributed?

[blonde barista]

i think that people are forgetting that not only did they get passed WAY further than the original scope of the promotion, but also that they were ALTERED. therefore, they were NOT STARBUCKS ISSUED COUPONS. if your local coffee spot sees a coupon that has been obviously altered, they aren't going to accept it either.

yeah yeah, "just say yes" and all that. well if you're getting 200+ fake coupons a day, you can't really "just say yes."

[auntie b]

I think Kelly Coakleys mother should be punished for raising such a fool!

[Colin]

She should've just gone over to Caribou Coffee on Friday. My mom is a manager for one a had a lot of Starbucks customers thanking her for their free drink. Funny how a twenty some billion dollar company thinks making customers angry is worth what the free drinks would have cost them. The lawsuit seems lame. I just think that with national news taking notice, it wasn't the smartest decsion on Starbucks part to not accept the coupon.

[BaristaBabyKai]

this woman and her lawyer's stupidity is causing me emtional trauma by suing my company.
i want $113 million as compensation to my emotional damages.
hahah, well, if she wins, i should win too, shouldn't i?

[Deusx]

Im glad you and your mom feel that way Colin, then I can expect that I and 20 of my friends will be welcome every day at her store with the nifty new Caribou coupons I've photo shopped?

[someone]

Does anyone else feel like we didnt get the whole story about the coupon????? Seriously...all that JUST SAY YESS busines and they cancel it and blame the partners for sending it beyond the original scope?????SBUX never came right out and said it had been altered...they just blamed us for sending it beyond it's original intended distribution.....
I know some busy stores got swamped, but mine is small and we only got a few, so what gives?

I wonder if we're missing some piece here...

[recoveringattorney]

DT -- Altered coupons are really a different issue. SB is wholly within their rights to refuse to honor an altered coupon (e.g. I could alter an coupon to say that SB would give me a cup of coffee and a cookie every day for year...but I could not reasonably expect it to be honored). One would reasonably assume that SB distributed to the shops a copy of what the coupons look like and any that do not match the "official" coupon are simply not valid.

That said, if you have *valid* coupons that have a "valid through..." date stated on them and the company suddenly decides to refuse their own coupons...there is a problem. There is no doubt that SB made a pretty stunning error in the distribution meathod it chose for the coupons...but that is really *their* problem...not the holders of otherwise valid coupons. Refusing to accept a valid coupon unilaterally legitimately exposes SB to claims of false advertising and possibly fraud. [N.B. Again, this does not extend to altered coupons]

One would think that someone did a cost benefit analysis of honoring the coupons for X days vs the litigation/defense costs of the almost guaranteed litigation (not to mention bad PR). Personally, I think SB followed one extremely dumb move (the emailed coupon) with a second extremely dumb move (refusing their own coupons).

[javagrrl]

As someone who's worked for the company for a long time, I was EMBARRASSED at this stupid coupon. It horrified me the first day I saw it, knowing that it was going to turn into a mess like this. What horrified me even more were the lines of customers who very proudly admitted to having, as one customer put it, "stacks of these in my office that we printed out and photocopied!" Great! Fantastic! We just opened the freaking Pandorá's box of Starbucks. Internet coupons... are we nuts?!

I as a partner for this company would love an apology from the Regional Director who approved their Regional Coordinator to send this coupon out. You've made thousands of your partners in this company look like idiots every day in front of our customers, and now we have to deal with the media of enormous lawsuits (however frivous and stupid) popping up as a result. Where's the respect and dignity for the people who have to put up with the "coupon fall-out" on a daily basis?

[Damaris]

I don't get the big deal about the coupon. Who would pitch a fit over a plain, little cup of coffee when most people who go to Starbucks order something better and more expensive anyway? How many people go to Starbucks and order just plain coffee, or even plain iced coffee? Everyone wants the Frosted Raspberry Double Chocolate Flan Chai Frappuchino or something like that, LOL. At least that's what I do.

[sbuxnewbie]

Damaris - the problem, as I understand it, is that the coupon was altered from offering a free iced coffee ( I don't recall if it was tall of grande) to offering a free grande beverage. THAT is what was being distributed on-line. I don't recall if the expiration date was altered or not, but that wouldn't surprise me, either.

[Tim]

If anyone should be sued, it's the asshat who sent the coupon to his friends and shouldn't have. The instructions were clear and *Starbucks* was taken advantage of.

I can't believe we're getting sued over this even though we were still told to accept the coupon and still politely inform people about why we weren't supposed to.

[Rob]

Suing one's ex for eleventy-million is a little high. Besides, my case against Starbucks, for $23 million, where they served me a too cold frap which caused my lips to freeze together, is still out. I'm upping it to $114 million and one dollar, bob.

[Daniel]

Meanwhile, the news keeps talking about "altered" but I have yet to see any proof that any coupon was actually "altered" or changed in any way -- its totally just rumor spreading bullshit by Starbucks which thinks it can do whatever it pleases beacuse its on every corner.... luckily, I dont even like Starbucks cofee but maybe they and haliburton should merge and just get it over with

[corianderstem]

Recoveringattorney - I can see the argument that Starbucks should have to pay somehow for a bonehead move, but suing for $114 million because she felt betrayed?

She should be ashamed, really.

[sb]

oh heavens what a lot of bunk. just say no if you don't like the SB experience or company. The girl and the others have a choice. go away.

[Dave the info guy]

Starbucks Coupon

Claim: Starbucks issued coupons via e-mail good for free iced grande beverages.

Status: Was true; cancelled by Starbucks; picked up by Caribou.

Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2006]

Hi Everyone,
Starting today until September 30th, please join us in "surprising and delighting" our family and friends, while introducing you to our iced beverages. Attached is an invitation for a complimentary iced Grande beverage. Please forward this invitation to everyone in your email address book.

Thanks so much!

Kimberly Beasley
*Starbucks Coffee Company*
*Southeast Regional Coordinator*
*(404) 636-5200 ext 2200*

COUPON WAS HERE

Origins: Recipients are well-advised to treat retail coupons circulated via e-mail with suspicion, because the coupons often turn out to be phonies created by pranksters or real coupons
that someone has reproduced and circulated without authorization (and which are therefore not accepted by the retailer).

The Starbucks coupon for a free iced grande beverage (valid until 30 September 2006) reproduced above was legitimate, if only in a limited sense, and if only briefly. We called the Starbucks Regional Coordinator whose name was listed on the e-mail to check, and she'd obviously been getting quite a few calls about the matter, because her phone line rolled over to a voicemail message that included information about the coupon. The gist of the message was that the coupon was genuine, but only for company-owned Starbuck outlets in the "Southeast region." However, a follow-up call to Starbucks' Customer Relations department yielded the information that since many coupons were e-mailed outside the Southeast region, the company had extended the offer to include all company-owned Starbucks locations in North America.

However, according to a 29 August 2006 press release, Starbucks has since changed its mind about honoring the e-mailed coupon anywhere:
Starbucks Response to Free Iced Coffee Email

An email offering a free Starbucks iced coffee was distributed to a limited group of Starbucks partners (employees) in the Southeast United States on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 with instructions to forward to their group of friends and family. Unfortunately, it has been redistributed beyond the original intent and modified beyond Starbucks control. Effective immediately, this offer will no longer be valid at any Starbucks locations.

We apologize for any confusion and inconvenience as a result of this offer.
Taking advantage of the withdrawn Starbucks promotion, the rival Caribou Coffee chain announced a few days later that they would honor the voided coupons on 8 September 2006 by giving free medium Cold Press iced coffee, iced Americano, or iced tea to persons presenting Starbucks iced coffee coupons at Caribou outlets from noon until the close of business that day.

[seattle]

1. People that sue for things like this are slapping everyone in the face who has actually had a legitimate reason to sue in order to stand up for themselves. Anyone who sues over something like a COUPON should be horribly ashamed of themselves simply for that fact alone.

2. Fraud? Please give me a break. Please.

3. A lawyer that actually takes on a case like this is simply calling attention to the fact that they are a ghetto, half-a**ed lawyer that didn't end up as successful as they thought they might when attending law school. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually has a low budget commercial that is played only in the middle of the night urging anyone watching to call if they've fallen somewhere.

[MidwestBarista]

Here in the heart of the Midwest, I saw very few of these, but each one was slightly different, a varied date, iced beverage vs. iced coffee, different sizes offered, etc. No one seemed upset when I didn't accept it. Why should they? Everyone knows to suspect email anything. Does anyone actually expect a $50.00 Olive Garden gift card when they click on the "Do you like the President?" pop up? Americans are just getting "stupider and stupider."

[recoveringattorney]

corianderstem - I do not disagree that the number seems large. However, the case is seeking class action certification and, in theory, it is the aggregate of "x" number of cups of iced coffee plus, I wager, some punitives figure (the first to address the "damage" and the later as a "punishment" for bad business practice(s). Please note, I am not suggesting it is right or wrong...just trying to give a bit of background other than knee-jerk annoyance responces.

It is worth noting that punitive damages are meant to punish bad practices (in this case, false advertising/fraud) and are most easily conceptualized in terms of a percentage of the market value of the Defendant. In this case, the compensatory damages might be $14MM and the punitives are $100 (N.B. these are purely arbitrary numbers on my part). As a percentage of gross revenue (approx. $6.4BB in 2005), a $100MM punitive award would represent about 1.5ish%...that is, about a $450ish dollar fine to someone making $30,000/year....mildly annoying but not especially significant (N.B. the math is off the top of my head and may be off in one direction or another).

This is one of the not insubstantial "problems" with punitive awards...they are meant to *punish* a company for bad behavior. The problem, of course, is what seems like stunning numbers to normal humans are just balance sheet adjustments to many companies. People were *shocked* about the punitive award against Exxon over the Valdez spill (and they successfully had it reduced)...in truth, it was the functional equivalent of a $120 fine for someone making $28K/year. Bill Gates/Microsoft literally scoffed when threatened with a $1MM/DAY fine for contempt...as the fine was literally nothing against the income stream of the subject behavior.

There is, obviously, a legitimate question as to whether a company should be "punished" for a poorlly designed/executed promotion. Then again, it is not unreasonable to hold a company responisible for the "promises" it makes.

Red Lobster had a promotion not long ago where they offered "all you can eat" crab legs for $10 (just a guess on price)...they took an absolute bath on it. However, they did not stop the promotion (advertized on tv and in press) until the end of the "good through" period...they just sucked it up and wrote off the loss (and, as I recall, fired the executive whose brainchild it was).

I want to be clear, I am not suggesting that the suit is well grounded or is likely to be a winner for anyone. I do, however, think there is at least a colorable cause of action.

[P. Scranton]

This has got to be the most biggest waste of time I've heard of! I still in shock that a lawyer would even bother clogging up the courts with crap like this! No wonder attorneys are held in such low esteem.

[Tony]

And they can feel really betrayed when starbucks adds a dime to the cost of everything they sell to recoup the losses (if they lose) for this lawsuit. That 2 bucks they get for winning will be far offset by a price increase. Nice job you fools (although the lawyer is going to take 1/3 of the settlement before everyone else sees their 1.25 "rebate").

Someone please post the address of the lawfirm and everyone write to them and tell them what fools they are.

[corianderstem]

Recovering Attorney - thanks for the info! Very interesting.

It is a legitimate concern on the consumers part. I don't think they actually expect to collect the amount sued for, but rather prove a point. They probably want to send a message to bi business that they shouldn't be allowed to get away with something like this...especially when this particular company preaches "just say yes" and is a rile model for many other large customer service oriented businesses. Starbucks needs to release a major apology and send a nominal amount of gift cards to these once loyal customers.

sorry can't spell....a couple of words mispelled above.

[former coffee drinker]

Some people had their coupons accepted. On what basis did they do this, race? looks? reading ability? or was it sexual gender?

What reason is there to buy from a company that gives some people free coffee and discriminates against others?

"sexual gender"? LOL

[corianderstem]

"They probably want to send a message to bi business that they shouldn't be allowed to get away with something like this"

Say what? They made a mistake. An embarrassing mistake that led to a lot of confusion, disappointment and annoyance, but it's not like Starbucks is a doctor who accidentally amputated someone's leg.

This site sees a lot of comments sneering about a "sense of entitlement," but this situation screams "sense of entitlement" to me. I still say it's ridiculous.

[Deusx]

I think I will be suing my ex-gf of ten years ago, I have a "good for one free backrub" coupon signed by her with no expiration date. I called her last night (we are still friends) and asked if she planned on honoring her coupon. Since she refused, I feel shocked and betrayed as this is a perfectly legitimate coupon that hasn't been altered in any way.
I feel misled as she got a very nice diamond bracelet shortly before she gave me the coupons. I shall have to call this attorney forthwith. Hmm..I wonder if she has defrauded any other boyfriends in this manner, we could apply for class action status!

[Jason]

"Meanwhile, the news keeps talking about "altered" but I have yet to see any proof that any coupon was actually "altered" or changed in any way -- its totally just rumor spreading bullshit by Starbucks which thinks it can do whatever it pleases beacuse its on every corner.... luckily, I dont even like Starbucks cofee but maybe they and haliburton should merge and just get it over with"

*coughassholecough*

The coupon originally said "Free Iced Grande Coffee" and someone changed it to "Free Iced Grande Beverage" Ask any store to see a copy of the original and the fake version, every store I know of has a copy of both. You should really get your facts straight before you accuse Starbucks of faking something to get out of having to accept the coupon, because there's a big F-ing difference between a iced coffee and an iced grande drink.

Secondly, this whole discussion is moot because the girl tried to redeem a fraudulent coupon if it said "Free Iced Grande Beverage". Starbucks doesnt have to honor fraudulent coupons. Wow, novel concept, I know. That's like me getting a blank sheet of paper and writing "Free Beer at any Krogers" on it with a crayon and then suing Krogers when they wont accept it. Its ridiculous. Just another example of how starbucks has the most ridiculous impatient moronic customers ever.

[formerly "anon"]

*cough *cough...another beautiful attempt at "sarcasm" by Deusx...oh god, how shall I contain my my laughter when your witty sense of humor is everywhere on the site...oh dear...enlighten us, oh Jimmy Fallon

[Deusx]

Actually Formerly, that would be satire. It would be sarcasm if it were more ironic and less lampooning the original idea. Satire often takes the form of drawing out an idea to a logical, but absurd conclusion. If we are going to make a parallel to a comedian, it would be more in the form of one of the SNL skits thought up by Jane Curtain, Dan Akroyd, etc. Jimmy Fallon, although sarcastic at times, seems to base most of his jokes on mugging at the camera with a "aren't I a naughty boy?" face.

Although, as someone has pointed out to me in a private email, I should and will be flattered. You spend nearly 70% of your time here "stalking" my posts. It is gratifying that I have made such an impact on your life, I hope you take the new found purpose and energy and direct it more creatively though. Perhaps you can drop a finger in a latte and hold a press conference that warns the world that "starbucks lattes are people!".

Have a nice night.

[B SCHIMMEL]

PRESS RELEASE:

Starbucks Sued Over Free Coffee

NEW YORK--Sept. 8, 2006--Starbucks must take responsibility for its actions in distributing a mass email promising consumers a complimentary iced coffee drink, a lawsuit filed in New York’s Supreme Court alleges.

On August 23, 2006, Starbucks distributed a coupon over the internet offering the bearer a free “grande iced beverage” at Starbucks retail stores between the hours of 12 noon and 9 PM; the offer was to be valid through September 30, 2006. Starbucks, however, refused to honor the offer after declaring that distribution of the coupon had become too widespread.

The class action lawsuit was filed today in New York County Supreme Court under index number 112545/06. It seeks a minimum of $114 Million under New York’s General Business Law, which prohibits deceptive advertising, on behalf of those consumers who were snubbed when they went to redeem the virtual coupon or who were misled by the advertisement. It further seeks a Court Order enjoining the multi-billion dollar company from conducting future misleading advertising campaigns.

"Starbucks should account to the thousands of consumers who relied upon the advertisement, went out of their way to stop by a Starbucks and ended up being charged $3 for coffee," stated Peter Sullivan of Sullivan Gardner PC, the attorneys who commenced the action. “The excuse proffered by Starbucks, that they did not believe that an offer released over the internet would be so widely distributed, is ridiculous.” “Clearly, Starbucks chose to initiate a viral marketing campaign to counteract their slumping sales.”

The Complaint alleges that Starbucks “knowingly disseminated the Advertisement with careless disregard for the valuable time that would be wasted by plaintiffs who attempted to avail themselves of the offer in the Advertisement and fraudulently induced consumers to take actions in reliance upon the Advertisement.”

Contact:
Sullivan Gardner PC, New York, NY
Peter Sullivan, Esq. +1-212-687-5900
ps@sullivangardner.net

# # #

[deusx]

One would think if one is going to put out a press release, one would fact check it. The coupon was for an iced coffee, not a grande iced beverage of their choice.
This attorney thinks that if he generates enough negative publicity, even if through dishonest means, Starbucks will pay him off to drop the case. This is quickly devolving into legalized blackmail.

On the other hand, it's getting to the point where I hope the people who approved this in the first place are put into stocks, pelted with tomatoes and publicly derided. I can't imagine how anyone could possibly of woken up, come up with this and thought to themselves "Wow, what a brilliant idea!"

[Lauren]

Deusx...

+1 for Soylent Green reference

Jason...

Please write that on a piece of paper with a crayon and take it to a Krogers. And wear a tin foil hat. Please. Tape it too? It just sounds way too funny to pass up.

And, as usual, my own two cents: I love law. I love tort law, I love contract law, I love criminal law. But I hate the new litigious nature of our society where people feel that they can sue anyone for anything. This case will never win, but I think that it's a shame it ever came up.

[Barista Ben]

All together now: SHYSTER!!!

[tomboy]

why is everyone defending starbucks for something they put in motion? lawyers suck... but starbucks should keep its promises. the coupon was legit, they should have known it would be emailed everywhere. Instead, they got the free publicity and broke their promise -- and it obviously helped them, because sales which sucked in july were up beig time in august; for them its just about getting the name out and bad press is as good as good press -- it puts the starbucks name out there and people say hmm im in the mood for coffee. No matter the bad press, its not like people are gonna boycott starbucks; no one cares enough. so pretty much starbucks can pull a stunt like this, get free press, then decide its cheaper to just break its promises. bad deal all around.

[deusx]

Tomboy im not sure how we can make this simpler to understand so I'm going to just type slower :) T-h-e o-r-g-i-n-a-l c-o-u-p-o-n w-a-s a-l-t-e-r-e-d. Did that sink in?

Starbucks was honoring the coupons initially even outside the area they were supposed to be honored. Then it was altered to give a free grande ice drink of any kind and the one I've seen was altered to be good for a year. THEN Starbucks began shutting down the coupon acceptance.

[streets]

Personally i think that starbucks is in control of the whole thing. Your all a bunch of tools. This is exactly what they want you to do.

[mark remkin]

Starbucks knew something like this would happen why else would they do it via the internet. It doesn't matter how it turns out as long as "Starbucks" is on the tip of everyone's tongue, they win.

[deusx]

Mark,

Do you really think Starbucks is so desperate for name recognition that they would put out an internet coupon, have some employees leak it outside the market it was intended for, have some more employees alter the coupon, etc. all so there would be a small public outcry and a blurb in the newspapers?

Is starbucks such an unknown and little talked about corporate entity that it must rely on incredibly arcane and circuitous means to accomplish something they do just fine with the minimal print advertising, widespread billboard advertising and nearly omni-present product commercials found on tv and radio?

They didn't "do it" on the internet. The coupon was distributed to select partners in the company email with the generous instruction to share with family and friends. Someone, more than likely on of the "family and friends" chose to forward this on to a friend of thiers, and then they forwarded on to a friend of theirs, ad infitum. Hindsight says "duh, you didn't think this would happen?" but that hindsight uses the cynical view of human nature. The original person who started the promotion was obviously naive enough to believe that the partners could be trusted to follow the company directions, which was a plainly stupid assumption to make.

[David]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Starbucks doesn't owe you anything. A coupon is not a contract. If you went into a Starbucks and they told you the coupon wasn't good and you didn't want to pay $3, DON'T BUY THE COFFEE.

It's a little ridiculous to sue someone when you can't actually demonstrate that you were harmed. This case will be thrown out in short order.

[TeamCoakley]

Are you 15? Is this your first job? Does Starbucks pay you to defend them? IT'S A PLACE WHERE YOU BUY COFFEE! Starbucks clearly made a mistake, a mistake they have enough money to fix.

[Grounds for Dismissal]

In regards to the above suggestion from Mike Williams to dunk the plaintiff “into boiling hot coffee until her skin falls off”. I have to disagree with him—I just think that’s plain wrong!

Everyone has a right to their day in court if they feel mistreated. A large corporation like Starbucks cannot simply dunk litigants into scalding hot coffee—without also offering to dip them afterwards into a choice of half-n-half or soymilk. The condiments bar is for everyone.

Furthermore, proper espresso shots should be pulled at 195-200 degrees! Already below the 212 boiling point; so I don’t see how Mr. William’s boiling-coffee suggestion is even practical.

[deusx]

"*cough *cough...another beautiful attempt at "sarcasm" by Grounds...oh god, how shall I contain my my laughter when your witty sense of humor is everywhere on the site...oh dear...enlighten us, oh Jimmy Fallon"

Grounds what you said was hilarious, I've decided to create the "Formerly anonymous" award for humorous posts, directly stealing his comments for my use. You sir are the first recipient, congradulations.

[Mila]

People like free things. People like to share free things with their loved ones. And they did. This is what Starbucks wanted in the first place... isn't it? Is it really possible that the coffee giant was SURPRISED by the swarming crowds demanding free iced drinks?

This is the power of email - spreading information, and coupons, at the click of a button.

Starbucks should have used an email anti-theft program to prevent their email from being forwarded out of control... It would have cost them less than $114 million, I bet.

[Mark Poliner]

Just a lawyer and a Plaintiff looking to force a settlement for a nice payday. Unfortunatley, depending on the right judge, it may actually go foward and not be dismissed as frivolous

[Grounds for Dismissal]

Deusx -- I think you’ve mistaken me for someone else. 1st time poster here--just responding to the boiling coffee comment my (real life) friend made up top. Really for his amusement, not yours.

In regards to the article: lawsuits without merit rarely pay out, especially upon appeal. Despite popular perception, the legal system actually kinda works.

[Tim Riker]

The lawsuit will hurt the Starbucks customers more than the stupid bogus coupon. I don't want to have to pay extra for each drink because this idiot sued Starbucks for $114 million and Starbucks of course might just pass this cost on to the customers.

If I was the judge I would just say, "I've heard enough, court dismissed."

[deusx]

I didn't mistake you for someone else, I credited your quote. I thought it was hilarious. If you haven't noticed in the thread, there is a post called "formerly anoynymous" whose life mission seems to be to heckle people, me primarily. He had a smarmy comment when I attempted to use humor to make a point, so I adopted it as a honorific for all those who strike my funny bone.

[Grounds for Dismissal]

Apologies Deusx. I misread your post as sarcasm...with "hilarious" meaning "extremely not hilarious"

[Sucker in Iowa]

I was emailed the coupon. That day I printed it out, drove to Starbucks, paid to park my car, and planned to redeem the coupon. I saw no signs, but was told by the counter person that the coupon was no longer being accepted. She pointed to a tiny sign sitting well below my eye level. I was angry and embarrassed. The coupon was supposed to be valid for another 30 days!

After I left, I became more angry. This struck as false advertising in a big way. They had to know this would be passed around. No company is that stupid. Right?

I will not ever go to Starbucks again. There are plenty of other fine coffeehouses to shop. And I would join the lawsuit.

[deusx]

Sucker

1. Welcome to the internet, anyone that trusts an internet coupon they get in a private email is an idiot.

2. Perhaps you missed the discussion that the coupon you recieved was fake? If I draw a coupon good that states I get half your life savings, will you honor it? If you don't, is it ok if I blame you and then sue?

3. Taking in to account 1. and 2. I think the baristas in Iowa are better out without your business. I hope the other coffee houses enjoy your naive, thoughtless sense of entitlement.

[annon]

deusx....youre pathetic, you have way too much time on your hands....you need to get a life outside of starbucks

[Mark]

Quote: "If this girl feels betrayed by this, I'd hate to see her reaction if her significant other cheats on her. How much do you think she'd sue for then? A trillion bajillion eleventy-million dollars!!!"

I love Matthew's comment here. It pretty much fits. Incidentally, it follows along with a story I'm doing in my webcomic, where one of the characters has been flirting with a barista just so he can get free coffee. In other words, he's a "Coffee Gigilo" (sans coupons, fake or otherwise).

Anyway, I think this lawsuit is really a sad comment on our society. The court system is the new lottery system for far too many people. Any big company I've worked for has always been the target for this kind of lawsuit by people hoping to get rich for nothing, or for being stupid and not wanting to take personal responsibility for it.

[deusx]

I agree, I do have way too much time on my hands, but that would be the fault of my employers, who are definitely not Starbucks. I haven't worked for Starbucks since around 2003.

[CAL]

Starbucks should have honored the coupon to be in compliance with their very own “just say yes” policy. Senior management must have approved the coupon format along with the e-mail distribution lists even as they inherently propagated beyond “the original intent.” This sounds like “pass the buck” to me- no pun intended. This “buck” was then passed down to their own store partners with regard to the disclaimer process and then right onto customer in the form of a refusal of promised goods. Since there was an expiration date present on the coupon, Starbucks should have just bit the bullet. Not only was their reputation damaged and the brand cheapened, but they also managed to leave themselves wide open to more bad press and potential lawsuits.

If I held stock in this company, I would be very concerned with the apparent lack of scope and foresight on the part of the senior leadership. A company partner sent an e-mail to a select group of partners in a particular region to be sent to everyone in their own address book. I am not an executive, but this is a huge red flag and it’s on fire! Was it really a surprise that the coupons were “reproduced and circulated without authorization?” If so, the company has a lot more to worry about than recalled drink coupons. What about a discrimination lawsuit? What if a Starbucks partner in another region felt “betrayed” because s/he did not receive a coupon to distribute to all of his/her own friends and family? I don’t want to inspire a licentious lawsuit; it is just food for thought.

[whatawasteoftime]

When companies send out promotional coupons, contests, etc. most read something to the effect of "this promotion may be cancelled at any time" just to insure that something like this doesn't happen. Did anyone REALLY see the original coupon and read the fine print?

[Deusx]

I was going to mention once again that the coupon was forged, but whats the point?

[corianderstem]

Quote of a quote: "If this girl feels betrayed by this, I'd hate to see her reaction if her significant other cheats on her. How much do you think she'd sue for then? A trillion bajillion eleventy-million dollars!!!"

Then quote: "I love Matthew's comment here. It pretty much fits."

Hey, that was MY quote!

: insert pout and then a winky thing :

[John Burgess]

"Honest mistakes," as an unintentional, overly broad distribution of coupons is an excusable offense and generally not legallya ctionable.

It's like the typo in the Sunday paper that offers coats for $14.99 instead of $149.99. You print a retraction (or post a sign at the point of sale) and you're covered.

Jackass attorney, jackass client.

Were they to win the case, the attorney would get 30% (or more) of the settlement/court order and the client, along with the rest of the class, would get $4 coupons. That's they way class actions work, no matter the cause, no matter the damage.

[Barista]

Actually, we were not informed to honor the coupons that were not able to see the signs. We were told to explain to the customer the situation and apologize for them. I can see if the customer was extreme distraught about it that we might make a case to give it to them, with the permission of the supervisor. However, never was I told to just give the drink to the customer at failure to read the sign.

Glad to say it wasn't one of my lovely customers who I adore completely.

[baristia]

At my store, it was posted that if a customer brought in the coupon, it needed to be honored, but to also explain that we will no longer accept it afterwards. Also, in that fine print on the bottom of the fraudulent coupon, it still says redeemable at participating Starbucks only! Clearly, not all stores were participating, even in the original e-mail. Therefore, the coupon that Miss Coakley has, still has proof against her as to why the coupon was revoked.

[dandenver]

Deusx, I've seen THREE samples of this coupon and NONE of them was altered to expire in a year. Why should they be? The original expiration date hasn't even passed.

Read my lips: Starbucks screwed up. And they admitted it.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/nothing/starbucks.asp

Why do you care to defend them?

[Deusx]

Dan,

The coupon scanned in at Snopes IS an altered coupon. If you notice, it says "Iced Grande Beverage", not Iced coffee. The original coupon promotion was for iced coffee, hence Caribou offering to honor the "coupons for iced coffee". You are right though, that particular fake coupon has not had the date altered, but I have seen ones that were.

[Former Barista]

Sucker in Iowa:

You really are a sucker if you paid for parking. Please tell me WHERE in Iowa you paid for parking? Or are you referring to the nickel you fed a meter in Iowa City? PLEASE get a life.

My head hurts after reading this, my brain is screaming. There are so many f---ing ignorant idiots on this board and in this world! In this day and age, since we're all experienced enough with computers and email, when a waitress, barista, clerk, or whomever, tells you that a coupon is no longer valid or fraudulent, DEAL WITH IT! Pay the measley three bucks or turn around and walk out. Chances are half the people who were forwarded the ALTERED coupons already knew they were fake but wanted to see if they could get away with it, and then have the audacity to get pissy about it! They've probably tried the same stunt with the fake Applebee's, Olive Garden, and Starbucks (from the spring) coupons! There have been hundreds of coupons circulated on the internet and in email that aren't real, and anyone with half a brain knows to take any email offers of any kind with a HUGE grain of salt!

Why the hell are Americans so cheap these days? God, they'll do anything for something free! Get a damn life people--and get a job! Make an honest living like the rest of us!

This lawsuit and others like it are a prime example why foreigners think we're all idiots!

And Dandenver, I've only read through this once, but re: your snopes.com link, no one has disputed that the plan went awry, and no one claimed that Starbuck's left it unacknowledged. Why should the coupons be altered to expire in a year? DUH-the more you print off, the more free coffee you get!

Idiots!

[Mark]

D'OH! My bad, corianderstem.

[Deusx]

In Dan's defense Former, he was responding to me saying some of the coupons had been altered to extend the "good for" date. Then he linked Snopes to prove me wrong, unfortunately there are about four (that I've seen so far) fake versions of the original that have been altered in different ways, so that really didn't support his arguement.

[Former]

Deusx-

Right, that's what I was trying to say--he has no support for his argument. If you alter the coupons to reflect an even longer period of redeeming time, that gives more people the opportunity to try to take advantage of the "Just say yes" policy and play dumb about the end of the promotion. Therefore, the coupon doesn't expire, and neither does their greediness! Although I doubt they'd be able to get away with it for too long...

I have "just said yes" to a fraudulent coupon or two (the one that was going around last spring), but made sure that the customer and those in line understood that it was not real. One customer (I think) was totally innocent and thought it was real, the other I'm pretty sure knew better, given her reaction when I first told her that it was a fake coupon but then she chilled when I told her I would honor it because I "trusted" that she didn't know any better.

We also had an issue a while back where a local cafe closed down leaving former customers upset because they had gift cards yet to be redeemed. Our DM offered, through the local paper, that anyone who mailed him the gift card would receive a free beverage certificate. Well you can imagine the earful we got when people who couldn't read directions came in and found out they couldn't use their gift cards at our store. Then there were those who thought we were going to reimburse them for the value of the card. A high school girl got lippy with me because she couldn't possibly understand that our computer system wouldn't read the card. We "just said yes" the first few times, explained the offer, took the card and gave them a freebie, but after a little while we had to put our foot down and tell them to follow the "rules." And of course, the inevitable blaming Starbucks for the cafe going out of business. Fun stuff. I don't think anyone got sued for that one, though.

I feel betrayed............. I went to Payless and saw some kickass shoes I had to have, but alas they didn't have my size.... those JERKS... how dare they not have my size, my life is ruined,my next stop is probably a mental hospital, oh woe is me

[D]

Posted by: recoveringattorney | Sep 10, 2006 6:41:50 AM

yes i agree with the above post... we do look like idiots. I am sick and tired of the customers that think that they are gods gift to the world and think they should get eveything for free. This is a business not a charity. What we need to get is a picture of the girl suing and put a circle around her face with a line through it and post it in ever establishment.

Life is nothing but a big disappointment....GET OVER IT!!!

I hope they put this law suit on live TV so the world can see her ass get laughed out of the room. Perhaps they need Judge Judy..or Judge Mathis...Then maybe all the other idiots will think first.

[Marc]

We have to look no further than Mr Sullivan and Kelly Coakley, to figure out what is wrong with our society today. It is a shame when greed consumed individuals such as these, waste all that time going to school only to figure out a new way of scamming people. So sad

[TonySan]

I have a question, why would this Regional Coordinator do something so outrageously, phenomenally stupid? E-mail a coupon that can be forwarded, photoshopped, altered, photocopied an infinite number of times, and then distributed to all 4 corners of the continent? Seriously, I don't get it.

Here's an alternative, if you really wanted to surprise and delight friends and family, how about designing and commissioning a finite number of coupons (like the small free iced beverage cards), meet with your district managers, have them pass out a predetermined number of coupons to each store manager, and then have the store manager instruct baristas on handing them out. OH MY GOD!!! WE ALREADY DO THAT!!!

[josh]

starbucks deserves punishment. they distributed a coupon and told people to forward it around. then when it got forwarded, they cancelled the offer. obviously 1.4 million is outrageous. they should be forced to give out free iced coffee for a month like they said they would! if they only wanted to the coupon to reach a limited audience, they could have easily put restrictions on it.

btw, some people arguing on here don't understand what happened. there was nothing fraudulent about the coupon. it was officially released by starbucks. they just didn't expect so many people to use it. that's like walking into a bar and yelling "beer's on me tonight!" and then slipping out on the tab.

[myshelle]

where do i find this peter sulliavan attony ?

[Scorpio370]

People, once again, as stated by many others...

THE COUPON WAS ALTERED, IT BECAME FAKE, IT BECAME FRAUDULENT, IT WAS NOT WHAT THEY PUT OUT, IT WAS THE CREATION OF SOMEONE NOT OF SBUX...

Does this help understand why it was cancelled now?

i think that nyc made a big mistake if your going to post something on the internet then just about everyone is going to see it. word of advice next time you try to post something like that make sure you stay with it.

[cc]

Everyone keeps saying "altered" -- let's see this alleged "original" coupon.. hmmm hasn't been seen anywhere.... must have expired and disappeared like emails do... show me any other versio nof the coupon and I'll believe it.. if not, this is just starbucks and other iddiots making up an excuse.

[Deusx]

CC, even if you don't see the original, look to the counter advertisement of the competitor who began offering to honor the Starbucks "ice grande coffee" coupon in their own stores. Not a "iced grande drink".

I realize it is a longshot to expect you to do more than skim a full paragraph of words, but if you are too lazy to read all the posts so you know what the original coupon said, at least you might check out the link to the news article.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2385275&page=1

[Jake Wolf]

Starbucks is giving free coupons to ANYONE who calls up customer relations to complain about the email they received. Get yours before everyone starts calling and they crack down again.

http://iwantmyfreecoffee.blogspot.com/

[DL]

what do u guys think about people who are coming 4-5 times a day with coupons...i work at starbucks and people were coming in many times with another coupon..

we accepted over 200 coupons each day before the coupon was cancelled

[Barista sUz]

Sometimes I think to myself, "people are pathetic&low" and then I feel bad for thinking that. And then instances like this occurs and it reconfirms my statement. :)

We've stated several times that yeah, it was a huge mistake. Huge corporations make mistakes too. Big freakin deal. If a free drink is gonna make or break your day, let alone LIFE, then that's really freakin sad. Why don't you go cry about it in a corner. While the world's smallest violin plays for you.

And once more, it has been said many times that the coupon was altered. Maybe people should read up on it before they start running their mouths, making them look like a complete jackass.

[OnlyInAmerica...]

Whenever you send a mail and encourage receivers to forward to everyone in his/hers adress book it will only be valid that one step. Since the mail was intended for staff + friend, not friend of friends to infinity. I believe the amount of people intended for this campaign would be reduced, then also an estimation of how many of the intended target would actually use it. In the end it quite impossible to calculate final cost, but not near the suggested. $114 million.

In this case the question is: Did Kelly Coakley get the claimed coupon from a Starbucks employees mail or from friend of a friend and thereby not valid???

[Brian]

Since we don't see very many of these at my store, I politely inform the customer that the coupon is a fake (then reassure them I know its not their fault) and THEN I honor it, and do a "discount 5" or "markout" on the drink they want and make it for them anyway. I've had ppl nearly bowl over with excitement and kindness when I've done this. And it's just another example of what a great company this is to work for that allows me to do a 'random act of kindness' on a customer who may or may not be aware they are passing off a fake coupon. 9 times out of 10, they probably got it in email and don't know any better... And most of the ppl I've seen are newbies anyway, so you want to make sure they come back again after they've seen your generous hospitality and kindness. I think Starbucks should have told us to accept them anyway but only after explaining the situation to them. That way, they KNOW you are on their side. Which we are...

*B*

[Colin]

Now in response to DEUSX- I have worked in customer service for nearly twenty years. First rule is don't piss off your customers. Now my coupon I got was for iced coffee, simple. And what all the media explained was that Starbucks thought it got out of hand- no mention of fake or photoshopped. But if you had gone in to my mom's (or any Caribou) yes she'd of given you and your twenty friends a free drink- no photoshop required. Though if you did it everyday as you suggested no, because it was a one day thing. But you know what I've worked at am major dept. store for years and we'd often take back items we never sold-- because you please the customer. It happens, sometimes you take a loss to not piss people off, to not get bad word of mouth. Now -- I totally agree that the lawsuit is stupid. But, my mom has about 50 new customers that used to go to Starbucks. Stopping the coupon didn't help them.

I know this is long ago, but just wanted to respond
but DEUSX if you did bring in a photoshopped coupon that you received and it seemed like you honestly didn't know it was fake-- yeah, you get a free drink. Or if you were causing a hassle, causing a problem - yeah free drink to make you happy and to get on with the next customer. That what I've been taught, and have worked at JCPenny, TGIFridays and Caribou.

my original comment-
She should've just gone over to Caribou Coffee on Friday. My mom is a manager for one a had a lot of Starbucks customers thanking her for their free drink. Funny how a twenty some billion dollar company thinks making customers angry is worth what the free drinks would have cost them. The lawsuit seems lame. I just think that with national news taking notice, it wasn't the smartest decsion on Starbucks part to not accept the coupon.

reply from DEUSX-
Im glad you and your mom feel that way Colin, then I can expect that I and 20 of my friends will be welcome every day at her store with the nifty new Caribou coupons I've photo shopped?

okay and maybe the first rule isn't about don't piss off a customer-- it's like get them in the store, keep coming back, whatever but it's up on top for me

[-m]

I tried Caribou Coffee in Detroit last year. It was horrible.

I was on vacation while the whole coupon fallout happened. None of my customers were upset though. A good few of them are lawyers too.

People who file these ridiculous law-suites should be taken into the street and shot.

[Aussie Shift Super]

Six words - get a life you litigious loser!!

[starbucks_lover]

eww this is a complete waste of time y even sue just pay for the damn drink gosh...

whether the coupon was altered or not:

i think the big difference colin, (although i totally agree with the basic thoughts of your arguements) is that the coupon that starbucks denied didn't have just a 'one day only' on it.
it had a few weeks worth of ability to potientally strangle the company...

so your mom took the challenge to give out a freebies on ONE day. that isn't hard, and starbucks has done that on many occasions (as well as only for a few hours on specific days)

this caribou thing is great publicity, but it isn't trying to undo the same level of damage that these coupons would do... it's cashing in on a mistake that would only cost ONE day of buisness, that if honoured at SB would have been weeks worth of freebies...

see the difference?

[Nancy]

Hit Ctrl F and post the following

Posted by: sb | Sep 10, 2006 9:59:51 AM

it explains everything quite well. They sent a coupon to their employees and gave permission to give it to their close friends and family... if the lady was a close friend or family member of an employee... she should get her drink, but not 114 mil.

[MKE BARISTA]

"One of those people, Sullivan said, was his client, Kelly Coakley of Queens, who works as a paralegal and administrative assistant in another Manhattan law office."

She is so crazy her own law firm wouldn't even take the case

[~NiTOXina~]

i seriously can't imagine what that kinda people would b like if they had a divorce... ppl... get a life... just because not everyhting is to ur advantage, doesn't mean u have to sue it... one of these days... ppl will start sueing a bum for looking ugly in the streets... u might be the spoiled treasure at home... or u might b the baby of the family... but that's not the world~ if u like being treasured so much @ home, lock urself @ home & stay there... the world seriously doesn't need ppl like that... i also admit i have threatened a lawsuit b4 but it never got anywhere... that was because that they screwed up my cell phone contract~ so i jus said it for the hell to freak them out~ even tho i know i'd most likely win, it's a waste of time... i'm sure a cell phone would be worth more than an iced drink... u might as well save ur time & energy doin something more worth while... i'm sure if they work hard enough, they'll eventually get $114 mill... so don't b so _____ lazy!

[wanda]

In Canada, we have starbucks but they never give us coupons. I think that we should sue United States for xety billion dollars for ignoring us. And you should pay us the rest of our money for all our softwood lumber.

[Mayjones]

I thought the woman that sued Mc'Dondals over her son being over weight was going to extrems... however, this one takes the cake. The coupon was for the state of Georgia only according to a Startbucks Rep. Then someone posted it online and the next thing they knew it was in almost every state.

I was given five copies of the coupon by an employee because I go to their store once a week. I could make a claim for the free ice coffee however, I don't drink their coffee I always have a hot tea. For me their coffee is nasty and it is beyond me how they stay in business.

Setting all of this aside... the company has paid out over $300,000,000 for one person violating copyrights and posting the coupon online. About 40% of these claims were made by people reporting false claims. It is sure to pay even more thanks to sites like these:

Still posting the coupon so you can print it:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/nothing/starbucks.asp

And, this one tells people how to guilt the copany into a free coffee:
http://www.consumerist.com/consumer/starbucks/guilt-starbucks-into-giving-you-free-coffee-200964.php

For those that have filed false claims, "SHAME ON YOU!" It's because of people like you everything cost so much today. I don't know about the rest of you but I am fedup with paying more because people lie to get something for nothing.

[kathleen]

is there a benefit for partners to get theraputic massages as a health insurance benefit? Do I just need my doc to prescribe the massages?

[bri]

the coupon DID exist -- what are you talking about?? In that, this blog entry is very flawed.

then again if I were them I wouldn't have honored it either, but I wouldn't have been so stupid to put it out there in the first place. their real problem was not nipping it in the bud, but saying later "hmmm we can't really be giving all these free drinks away anymore"

[toronto]

due to an automobile accident i am just now getting up to date on this info...thanx readers digest! personally i hope that star f ucks loses this and every lawsuit that is filed against them. i had the misfortune to work for them and got to see the real inside story. there is no other more unethical, corrupt, immoral corp. on the planet. it is as if they strive to be this way. the response from star f ucks....."that they did not believe that an offer released over the internet would be so widely distributed, is ridiculous." is not only ridiculous but perfectly in line with the other lies that star f ucks will tell you when caught in the act of being who they truly are. i have often said that only two things in life will make me angry enough to want to have nothing to do with you. lie to me or insult my intelligence. and if you can lie to be so badly that you insult my intelligence in thinking that i will believe the lie then you are the gold star winner. star f ucks is a gold star winner many times over. another lie that fits the bill to explain. a vice president of human resources named christine deputy that works for star f ucks actually said to me, and i quote "there have never been repercussions against an employee of starbucks for bringing attention to the failings of one of their superiors performance." this from an individual that supposedly has a university degree in human resources! again either a blatant lie or ms. deputy is out of touch with reality! (but a perfect example of an employee of star f ucks.) i hope they all become victims of their own inhumanity and burn in a self made hell.

[HTGT]

I know Streets already said something along these lines, but what say we take a step back? If I've got the facts right, Starbucks sent out this email coupon, which was then altered and distributed beyond what they intended. Surely this huge corporation would not be so thick as to assume that their email would not be widely distributed.

Now this Sullivan uses Croakley as a face for the suit he files for "betrayal," or is it really for fraud, or is it breach of contract? And the amount of money in question seems absurdly high, although really, what's a hundred million to Starbucks?

What I'm getting at is that it seems way too simple. The first reaction to hearing the facts is, "That's so stupid!" At least, that's what mine was. Stupid on the part of the person who decided the emails should be sent, and stupid on the part of the woman who thinks she deserves millions of dollars for the coffee she didn't get.

I'm not accusing Starbucks of a shallow publicity stunt or claiming the lawsuit to be legit. Nor am I a conspiracy theorist. All I'm saying is, this whole episode probably happened for not-so-simple reasons, and it is definitely not worth getting angry about, unless of course your complaint is, as someone whose post I can't find mentioned, how stupid it makes America look.

Yep, I'm pretty sure that's all I have to say.

[Ethan]

I think it's pretty pathetic that Starbucks would put out coupons and then when people try to use them they will not honor them. But, I also don't think it is 114 million dollars worth of problems.

[Dylan Kratz]

If Bush can listen to my phone calls than they should be able to sue starbucks.

[MattyMo]

Screw starbucks! they dont know what they are doing and htey exploit children RAWR!!!!

[MattyMo]

Screw starbucks! they dont know what they are doing and htey exploit children RAWR!!!!

[sayed]

I am very impressed with your actions and will be glad to take 1 drink from you lads . Thank you very much.

[MARCI]

PETER SULLIVAN...WHERE ARE YOU? HOW COME I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND A LAWYER THAT ISN'T GOING TO BUCKLE UNDER CORPORATE AMERICA. IF STARBUCKS COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO ESTIMATE WHAT THIS MAY END UP COSTING THEM, THEN THEY SHOULD JUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND SUCK IT UP!

[Dagann]

After hearing on the news soon after 9-11 that New York firefighters were denied water from a Starbuck's manager and only recieved it after paying a exorbitant amount of money for a case of bottle water, That as far as i was concerned, i would never offer my urine to Starbuck's even if they were on fire. However, i would offer a suggestion to caffine addicts that if necessary, Mcdonalds offers gourmet coffee products at a reduced rate. If anyone agrees with me then consider dropping by and i will give you a free cup of Folgers.