Starbucks has been sued before for allegedly mocking a group of deaf people, for racial discrimination and for allegedly unlawfully firing a barista for being a “danger” to the work environment because she was a dwarf. Now, yet another law suit looms for the popular coffee chain. 

Since it is a huge corporation, Starbucks is no stranger to courtroom cases. It has a team of lawyers ready to argue (or settle) any dispute against the company. One wonders, then, how it will handle its most current dispute — the inadequate level of lattes. 

Yes, Starbucks is being sued because it has apparently been committing fraud by under-filling its cups. It engaged in false advertising, and those involved in the lawsuit are “seeing compensatory and punitive damages as well as restitution for those affected,” according to the lawsuit. 

The lawsuit claims that the lattes are too small because the baristas are not using as much milk as they should, possibly because milk is one of its largest expenses. The lattes could be as much as 25 percent smaller than advertised.

Seriously? 

I’m not trying to defend Starbucks here because I wouldn’t be the least surprised if a venti-sized coffee only ended up being the size of a grande. Starbucks cuts corners, and I understand that it can be frustrating to feel conned. 

I also understand the desire for coffee. Numerous college students say they drink coffee to survive, but many of them mean Frappuccinos, or lattes with a triple flavor shot, drinks that taste more like vaguely-coffee flavored milkshakes. 

That’s fine. Get your caffeine however you want it. If I was the type to hashtag frivolously, I’d say #nojudgment. 

I take offense with the frivolity of the lawsuit. 

Subway was sued in 2013 because its “footlong” sandwiches failed to measure up. Subway replied that it had never meant to imply that the subs were always 12 inches and that it could not be blamed for the variation in bread sizes. 

Starbucks has responded to the under-filling accusations with a similar response.

“We are aware of the plaintiffs’ claims, which we fully believe to be without merit. We are proud to serve our customers high-quality, handcrafted and customized beverages, and we inform customers of the likelihood of variations,” a Starbucks representative said.

I’m surprised this is being brought to court. Are we so nitpicky as a society that getting a little less is that big of a deal to us? So we’re not getting as much frothy milk in our drinks as we thought, and yes, maybe Starbucks should rectify that. 

Running to the lawyers because we aren’t getting what we don’t need feels like a first world problem that is funny. I don’t really like the whole “someone else has it worse” mantra because it feels insulting and condescending, but I can’t think of a time when it is more appropriate. People have been manhandled by huge corporations because they do not have the means to state their case, and they lose out all the time.

It almost reminds me of Stella Liebeck, who sued McDonald’s because her coffee was too hot — except for the fact that in that case, the woman in question was 79 years old, and the coffee caused third-degree burns through her clothes. She was hospitalized because the coffee “burned away to the layers of muscle and fatty tissue.”

She was later ridiculed for what many believed was a foolish and unnecessary lawsuit by a greedy individual. Her side of the story nearly went unexplored. 

Liebeck was initially rewarded $200,000 for her medical costs and $2.7 million for punitive damages, but these were decreased to $160,000 and $480,000, respectively. This first minimization was because the jury found her 20 percent responsible for the outcome. 

Her traumatic experience was an example of a legitimate grievance that an individual — in fact, 700 individuals — could conceivably have with a company.

I’m not some conspiracy theorist, and I’m not inherently distrustful, so I don’t believe every person who works in a big business is some cartoonish bigwig with dollar signs for eyeballs. However, I don’t think companies necessarily hold the needs of the consumer nearest and dearest to their hearts. Their main reason for existing is to profit, and their business interactions tend to reflect that.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. It means we as consumers need to make our voices heard if something particularly abhorrent is going on. Something abhorrent means making your coffee hot enough to burn an elderly woman’s skin down to the muscle without adequate labeling, not something as unimportant and laughable as not putting enough frothy milk in your lattes.

Lawsuits such as the Starbucks latte one muddy the waters for people with real problems and give concerned consumers a bad name.