With a history of making "non-literal commentary", Carlson used the Starbucks example as an analogy for the Democratic party favoring corporates.
However, it is uncertain as to what he's referring to with the analogy, and the basis of his comparison remains unclear. But Carlson has a history of making exaggerated claims on his show. NPR has earlier reported that Fox News's own lawyers have claimed not all his commentary is factual in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers said "the 'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.'"
"Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes," Judge Vyskocil further wrote.