Coffee Bean class action claims chain adds surcharge for non-dairy milk

Coffee Bean surcharge class action lawsuit overview: 

• Who: A group of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against The Coffee Bean Tea & Leaf. 
• Why: The group claims Coffee Bean discriminates against consumers who suffer from lactose intolerance or who have a milk allergy by levying a surcharge to substitute milk for a non-dairy alternative. 
• Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. 

The Coffee Bean Tea & Leaf levies an unlawful surcharge to customers who request to substitute milk for a non-dairy alternative, a new class action lawsuit alleges. 

A group of consumers claim Coffee Bean is discriminating against people with milk allergies or who suffer from lactose intolerance by charging an extra at least an 80-cent surcharge to substitute milk for a non-dairy alternative. 

The group argues there is no material difference between the price of lactose-containing milks and the price of non-dairy alternatives that would support levying the surcharge. 

“Non-Dairy Alternative Surcharges are not to defray the added costs of use of these ingredients. Instead, the Surcharges are designed to profit from those consumers with lactose intolerance and milk allergies,” the Coffee Bean class action states. 

The group wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who have milk allergies or suffer from lactose intolerance and who purchased drinks or other items from Coffee Bean within the last four years, and a class of similarly situated California residents who purchased within the last two years. 

Coffee Bean will make other drink modifications at no added cost, class action claims

Despite levying the surcharge for non-dairy milk, Coffee Bean will substitute different types of milk or modify its beverages to remove caffeine and/or sugar at no additional cost, the Coffee Bean class action lawsuit alleges. 

“There is no expertise or additional work required of Coffee Bean’s employees that would substitute whole milk or fat-free milk in place of 2% regular milk, or who would make caffeine-free or sugar-free beverages, to also be able to substitute Non-Dairy Alternatives such as almond or oat “milk” in place of 2% regular milk,” the Coffee Bean class action lawsuit states. 

The group claims Coffee Bean is guilty of intentional discrimination, unjust enrichment and violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. 

The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory relief along with an award of statutory, compensatory, treble and liquidated damages for themselves and all class members. 

A trio of consumers filed a similar class action lawsuit against Starbucks earlier this year over clams the company imposed an unlawful surcharge for all non-dairy milk substitutions. 

Have you been charged extra for substituting a non-dairy alternative at Coffee Bean? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by William M. Aron of Aron Law Firm and Bogdan Enica and Keith L. Gibson of Keith Gibson Law, P.C. 

The Coffee Bean surcharge class action lawsuit is Chaffin, et al. v. International Coffee & Tea LLC , Case No. 2:24-cv-03132, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Splenda class action claims stevia product falsely labeled as 100% natural
• V8 Splash class action claims products are mostly water, sweetener
• Starbucks voluntarily dismisses lawsuit over fake franchise websites
• Prime class action claims energy drinks contain more caffeine than advertised