Black women throughout the Americas -- and in particular the United States -- face health care mistreatment due to "systemic racism," leading to high death rates during...

Massive demand for diabetes and weight loss drugs made by Danish pharmaceutical group Novo Nordisk have turned it into Europe's most valuable company, giving...

In our constant quest to suss out the best beauty products that are worth the money, R29 editors can usually be found draining bottles of foaming face wash, exfoliating powders, and makeup remover, just to name a few. And while cleansers were formerly a comparatively boring category — a necessary step to get to the more-riveting serums and decadent moisturizers — such is no longer the case. From buttery balms and fresh gels to milky emulsions and much more, we're in a golden age of face washes that we can't help but look forward to using.

SAVE 49%: Unblock Canadian Netflix with a high-speed VPN. A one-year subscription to ExpressVPN is

A woman is suing Starbucks for “false and deceptive practices” over claims that the coffee company’s iced, fruit-filled refresher beverage actually contains no fruit. Joan Kominis from Queens, New York, filed a complaint in August 2022 after learning that Starbucks’ Strawberry Acai Lemonade Refresher contained no actual acai. Court documents filed in the southern district of New York claim that “unbeknownst to consumers, the Mango Dragon Fruit and Mango Dragon Fruit Lemonade Refreshers contain no mango, the Pineapple Passionfruit and Pineapple Passion Fruit Lemonade Refreshers contain no passionfruit, and the Strawberry Açaí and Strawberry Açaí Lemonade Refreshers contain no açaí.” Kominis and her co-plaintiff, Jason McAllister of California, are seeking damages in excess of $5m. Starbucks has since called the allegations “inaccurate” and “without merit”. On Tuesday 19 September, US District Judge John Cronan rejected Starbucks’ request to dismiss nine of the 11 claims in the class-action complaint because “a significant portion of reasonable consumers” would assume that the beverages in question would contain the fruit in their names. The plaintiffs have said the main ingredients in these beverages were water, grape juice concentrate, and sugar. They claim the refreshers “differ from other Starbucks products” in that the product doesn’t contain items in their name. “Starbucks’ hot chocolate contains cocoa, its matcha lattes contain matcha, and its honey mint tea contains honey and mint,” reads the complaint. While they noted that the refresher drinks do in fact contain freeze-dried pieces of strawberries, pineapple and dragon fruit, they claimed that Starbucks “does not affirmatively indicate anywhere which ingredients are and are not in the products.” Starbucks had said that the fruits mentioned in the refreshers titles are meant to “describe the flavours as opposed to the ingredients.” Judge Cronan disagreed, writing in his ruling: “Nothing before the Court indicates that ‘mango,’ ‘passionfruit,’ and ‘açaí’ are terms that typically are understood to represent a flavour without also representing that ingredient.” In Kominis’ original filing, she claimed that she was going to buy a Strawberry Açaí refresher specifically for the açaí benefits. The suit stated that açaí berries and juice “are known to provide benefits to heart health, cognitive function, and contain anti-cancerous properties.” “Had she known that the product did not contain açaí, she would not have purchased it, or would have paid significantly less for it,” the document read. Kominis said that she and other consumers bought these menu items and “paid a premium price” based on Starbucks’ naming of the refreshers, and would either not have purchased them or “paid significantly less for them” had they been aware they were missing one of the named fruits. “The allegations in the complaint are inaccurate and without merit,” a Starbucks spokesperson told Today. “We look forward to defending ourselves against these claims.” One claim of fraud and another for unjust enrichment were dismissed from the suit, but Starbucks will have to face the rest of the allegations. The Independent has contacted a spokesperson for Starbucks for comment. This is the second lawsuit an American food chain has faced in recent weeks. Earlier this month, Burger King was sued over claims that the company misled customers by making its Whopper burger appear larger on the menu than how it appears in reality. Read More Citing sustainability, Starbucks wants to overhaul its iconic cup. Will customers go along? Starbucks cheers ‘good progress’ in plan for 100 new UK shops Ed Sheeran serves up Pumpkin Spice Lattes to surprised Starbucks customers Courgette season is nearly over – here’s three ways to make the most of them Top international cuisines Brits are keen to try Subway enthusiasts stew over launch of first ever 3-inch sandwich

Humble Bundle, the marketplace that raises money for charity while bringing you a collection of

Save $130: As of August 17, the Sennheiser Momentum True Wireless 3 earbuds are on

TL;DR: Through Sept. 4, you can get the BirdBike eBike in black, white, or gray

TL;DR: A wide range of online courses from Stanford University are available to take for

A mishmash of exchange rates for Argentina’s chaotic currency system are hanging in the balance as the nation

There are many reasons to love video games. From Final Fantasy's sweeping adventures to Super

TL;DR: Through May 28, you can score a lifetime subscription to Tykr Stock Screener for