Two customers have filed a proposed class motion alleging Starbucks misled buyers within the states of New York and Washington with its “Dedicated to 100% Moral Espresso Sourcing” claims.
The lawsuit additionally claims that the Seattle-based espresso big didn’t disclose alleged industrial solvents detected in no less than one decaffeinated espresso product.
Filed Jan. 13 within the U.S. District Courtroom for the Western District of Washington, the swimsuit was introduced by Jennifer Williams of Ferndale, Washington, and David Strauss of Irvington, New York.
In an emailed assertion to Day by day Espresso Information, Starbucks stated, “We take the allegations raised within the Williams and Strauss lawsuit significantly, however we firmly imagine they’re inaccurate and misrepresent each our sourcing practices and the integrity of our Espresso and Farmer Fairness (C.A.F.E.) Practices program.”
Advertising and marketing Allegations
On the middle of the grievance is Starbucks’ consumer-facing “100% moral sourcing” pledge, which is printed on packaged espresso and proven in different advertising supplies.
The grievance cites a number of third-party sources over roughly the previous decade alleging labor and human rights abuses at some farms or cooperatives licensed underneath Starbucks’ C.A.F.E. Practices program, an in-house sustainability certification scheme.
In a single instance, the swimsuit factors to a 2022 Brazilian labor grievance involving Cooxupé, described as a cooperative that has offered a serious share of Starbucks’ Brazil sourcing whereas holding C.A.F.E. Practices certification.
Among the allegations outlined within the grievance echo a lawsuit filed in January 2024 by the Nationwide Customers League (NCL), which sued Starbucks in D.C. Superior Courtroom alleging the corporate’s “100% moral” sourcing claims had been misleading underneath the District’s client safety legislation.
That case took a procedural detour into federal courtroom earlier than being remanded again to D.C. Superior Courtroom in January 2025. In August 2025, the NCL introduced {that a} D.C. decide denied Starbucks’ movement to dismiss, permitting the case to maneuver ahead.
Decaf Allegations
The brand new Williams and Strauss lawsuit additionally alleges that Starbucks didn’t disclose risky natural compounds (VOCs) that will have affected the buying choices of customers.
The grievance states that the testing organized on behalf of the plaintiffs detected the chemical substances benzene and toluene, in addition to methylene chloride. The latter is a chemical solvent that has been extensively used within the espresso trade within the decaffeination course of.
Within the swimsuit, the plaintiffs don’t allege that Starbucks violated any federal food-safety regulation, exceeded any FDA residue restrict or failed to incorporate data required by federal legislation.
Nonetheless, they declare Starbucks engaged in “misleading omissions” that precipitated individuals to “buy the product underneath the misunderstanding that it consisted solely of espresso and to pay a worth premium they in any other case wouldn’t have paid.”
Feedback? Questions? Information to share? Contact DCN’s editors right here. For all the newest espresso trade information, subscribe to the DCN e-newsletter.
Associated Posts
Nick Brown
Nick Brown is the editor of Day by day Espresso Information by Roast Journal.
