The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency questioned Yang Jong-hwan, head of Shinsegae Group’s audit team, as a witness on Wednesday, according to a company spokesperson. The inquiry is linked to public complaints filed over Starbucks Korea’s “Tank Day” reusable cup promotion held on May 18.

The campaign sparked nationwide outrage because it took place on the 46th anniversary of the 1980 Gwangju uprising, a pro-democracy movement that was violently suppressed by military forces. Official figures state that 165 civilians were killed during the crackdown, although activists and historians have long argued the actual death toll was significantly higher.

Starbucks Korea operates more than 2,000 stores nationwide under a licensing agreement with Shinsegae Group, making South Korea one of the coffee chain’s most important international markets. The controversy quickly escalated into a major corporate crisis, prompting Shinsegae to dismiss the head of its Korean operations on the day the scandal emerged.

Shinsegae Chairman Chung Yong-jin later issued a public apology, acknowledging the seriousness of the incident and expressing regret for the distress caused to victims’ families, survivors and the wider public.

Despite those measures, a civic organization filed a legal complaint against Chung and other company executives. The complaint alleges violations of a 2016 law related to the Gwangju uprising, including provisions prohibiting the dissemination of false information about the historical event. The filing also includes allegations of defamation and insult.

The company said it would cooperate fully with investigators and hoped the facts surrounding the case would be clarified promptly and transparently. Police have not publicly commented on the investigation.

The backlash has had tangible business consequences. According to the company, sales declined sharply in the days immediately following the controversy as public anger intensified. Demonstrations were held in both Seoul and Gwangju, with critics accusing the company of insensitivity toward a defining moment in South Korea’s democratic history.

In response, Starbucks Korea announced that all stores nationwide will close for half a day next Monday to allow employees to attend educational sessions on the Gwangju uprising. Senior executives, including Shinsegae’s chairman, are scheduled to participate in a separate history program later in the week.

An internal review by Shinsegae concluded that a series of procedural failures contributed to the launch of the campaign, including the approval of promotional materials without adequate review of design content and timing.

The controversy also drew criticism from President Lee Jae Myung, who described the incident as “inhumane” and “disgraceful,” reflecting the sensitivity that still surrounds the legacy of the Gwangju uprising more than four decades after it became a symbol of South Korea’s democratic struggle.

The investigation remains ongoing.

Judge Dismisses False Advertising Lawsuit After Mediation Talks, Closing Chapter on Sugar Content Dispute

PepsiCo has officially resolved a high-profile lawsuit that accused the company of misleading consumers about the nutritional benefits of its Gatorade protein bars.

The case, which had drawn national attention for questioning marketing claims in the booming health snack industry, was dismissed by a California federal judge — bringing a close to nearly a year of legal contention.

U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts in San Jose dismissed the proposed class-action lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.

The dismissal came at the joint request of PepsiCo and the plaintiffs — three self-described fitness enthusiasts — suggesting that an agreement was reached following court-ordered mediation, though the exact terms remain undisclosed.

The lawsuit, McCausland et al. v. PepsiCo Inc., alleged that PepsiCo violated consumer protection laws by promoting Gatorade protein bars as products that “help muscles rebuild,” are “used by the pros,” and are “backed by science.”

According to the plaintiffs, these claims painted the bars as health-promoting snacks suitable for fitness-conscious consumers. However, the complaint argued that each bar contained more sugar than protein — and even more sugar than a Snickers bar or a chocolate-frosted Dunkin’ donut.

The plaintiffs claimed that the Gatorade bars contained 28 grams of added sugar and only 20 grams of protein, contradicting PepsiCo’s marketing message.

They accused the company of misleading labeling that could deceive health-conscious consumers who believed the bars supported recovery and muscle growth.

They also emphasized that the sugar content exceeded the American Heart Association’s recommended daily limit of 25 grams for women.

PepsiCo, headquartered in Purchase, New York, is one of the world’s leading food and beverage companies, with brands including Fritos, Lay’s, Mountain Dew, and Tropicana.

In court filings, the company dismissed the lawsuit as “implausible,” arguing that it never advertised the Gatorade protein bars as low-sugar or inherently healthy.

Instead, PepsiCo maintained that its packaging accurately represented the product’s nutritional facts, and that claims like “help muscles rebuild” reflected legitimate marketing within the sports nutrition industry.

Judge Pitts initially allowed the lawsuit to proceed in August 2024, finding that reasonable consumers could have been misled by the company’s marketing language.

At that stage, the judge noted that PepsiCo’s use of phrases such as “science-backed” could imply a level of nutritional benefit inconsistent with the product’s actual sugar levels.

Consumer protection experts saw the case as a broader test of how far companies can go when making performance-related claims on food products.

The issue underscored the growing consumer demand for transparency in labeling — especially in the health and fitness market, where “high-protein” snacks have become a booming category.

The plaintiffs had argued that PepsiCo’s marketing strategy blurred the line between sports supplements and confectionery products, thereby misleading consumers who wanted post-workout nutritional support.

They also stated that if they had been aware of the high sugar content, they would not have purchased the product or would have paid less for it.

Although the court documents do not confirm whether a financial settlement occurred, legal analysts believe PepsiCo likely reached a confidential resolution to avoid prolonged litigation and potential damage to its brand reputation.

Similar class actions in recent years against major food companies have often ended in settlements rather than trials, reflecting a growing legal trend around “healthwashing” — the practice of exaggerating nutritional benefits in marketing materials.

PepsiCo’s decision to close this case comes at a time when food giants are under increasing scrutiny for the accuracy of their product labels and health claims.

With rising consumer awareness about sugar, additives, and processed ingredients, companies are now taking extra caution to ensure their messaging aligns with regulatory standards and public expectations.

The resolution of this case may influence future marketing practices across the industry. Companies could face higher pressure to ensure that performance-related terms — especially those implying health or scientific validation — are substantiated by credible data and clear communication.

While PepsiCo has not publicly commented on the case’s dismissal, the outcome signals a shift toward accountability in advertising practices within the global snack and beverage industry.

As more consumers demand nutritional transparency, brands that blend indulgence with authenticity are likely to gain greater trust and market share.