It's not just some obscure brands who are receiving criticism over deceptive advertising. At the end of 2023, consumers sued Starbucks because, in their opinion, Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have no passion fruit.

In such cases, plaintiffs typically argue that companies are going beyond simple marketing hyperbole and misrepresenting their food and drinks — whether it's promising ingredients that aren't there or displaying promotion images that don't match the real-life items.

There has been a wide range of accusations in recent years: Barilla pasta isn't made in Italy, Burger King's Whoppers are smaller than they appear, and the "boneless wings" served at Buffalo Wild Wings aren't actually chicken wings.

Subway's "100% tuna" sandwiches either partially or completely lack tuna, Taco Bell skimps on the fillings in its Mexican Pizza, Crunchwrap Supreme, and the list goes on.

"In general, companies can say great things about their product and make any kind of opinion claims they want to make about it. They can even say it's the best in the world," Louis Tompros, an intellectual property attorney at the law firm WilmerHale in Boston, told NPR.

"Opinion claims about a product are called puffery, and they're perfectly fine under false advertising law. What false advertising law does not allow is a false factual claim," Tompros explained.

While some companies have succeeded in getting cases against them tossed out of court, other legal food fights have pushed businesses to spend a lot of cash on settlements.

Last year, A&W Concentrate Co. agreed to pay up to $15 million to settle claims that its root beer and cream soda weren't "made with aged vanilla," as the labels suggested.

And back in 2014, Red Bull announced it would pay more than $13 million to settle a lawsuit brought by buyers who said the energy drink didn't — as the marketing materials promised — "give you wings."

Tompros, who is also a lecturer at Harvard Law School, said some law firms specialize in food and beverage false advertising cases and even recruit plaintiffs to be part of a possible class action.

When companies settle cases, payouts to an individual consumer may be relatiively small, but attorneys' fees can be substantial.

"There's a great incentive for law firms to try to identify even small-value misstatements in advertising and then bring a class-action suit, because the attorneys' fees from that suit can make it worthwhile for the firms," Tompros added.

Though not every case may result in a monetary settlement, experts say the uptick in deceptive marketing cases may cause companies to be more cautious in their ads in the future. So it can very well mean that in the long run, the difference between what we expect from food products and what we actually receive will shrink!