Starbucks class action alleges coffee not ethically sourced and contains industrial solvents

Starbucks class action overview:

• Who: Two consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Starbucks Corp.
• Why: The plaintiffs allege Starbucks misleads consumers about the ethical sourcing and processing of its Starbucks coffee products.
• Where: The Starbucks class action lawsuit was filed in Washington federal court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges Starbucks misleads consumers about the ethical sourcing of its coffee products and the undisclosed presence of volatile organic compounds.

Plaintiffs Jennifer Williams and David Strauss filed the class action complaint against Starbucks on Jan. 13 in Washington federal court, alleging violations of state consumer laws.

According to the Starbucks class action lawsuit, the brand has built substantial consumer trust by presenting itself as an ethical leader in the coffee industry.

“This case seeks to hold Starbucks accountable for telling consumers it guarantees the ethical nature of [the] coffee supply chain, when the facts on the ground show otherwise,” the plaintiffs say.

For years, Starbucks has printed the statement “Committed to 100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing” on the front label of all its Starbucks coffee products, the plaintiffs claim.

Williams and Strauss argue that for the past decade, Starbucks has faced documented allegations of serious labor abuses on C.A.F.E.-certified farms from governments, UN agencies, journalists and worker advocates.

However, the plaintiffs allege Starbucks relies on a series of deceptive claims to create a net impression of its ethical coffee sourcing leadership.

Starbucks allegedly conceals presence of volatile chemicals in coffee products

The class action lawsuit also demands that Starbucks disclose to consumers that independent testing has detected volatile organic compounds, including benzene, toluene and methylene chloride, in its decaffeinated Starbucks coffee beans.

These types of volatile organic compounds are widely used in industrial applications, such as paint removers, paint strippers and other solvent products, and are not typically associated with food production, the Starbucks class action alleges.

Yet the presence of such industrial solvents in Starbucks coffee products is not disclosed at the point of sale, and Starbucks’ failure to do so is a material omission that is highly misleading to reasonable consumers, the plaintiffs say.

The Starbucks class action lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a proposed class of consumers under Washington and New York consumer protection statutes and for common law fraud.

The plaintiffs demand damages, restitution and injunctive relief to stop Starbucks from continuing to market its Starbucks coffee as “100% ethically sourced” or that Starbucks is “Committed to 100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing” unless and until that claim is truthful and adequately qualified.

Meanwhile, Starbucks is also currently facing class action allegations from employees in Colorado, Illinois and California, alleging the coffee giant failed to reimburse them for clothing and shoes required by a new dress code.

What do you think of the allegations made in this Starbucks class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steve W. Berman and Catherine Y.N. Gannon of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Kim E. Richman of Richman Law & Policy.

The Starbucks class action lawsuit is Williams, et al. v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 2:26-cv-00112, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• JPMorgan class action alleges tobacco surcharges violate ERISA
• Curtis International expands Frigidaire Minifridge recall due to fire hazard
• Google agrees to $8.25M settlement over Play Store children’s privacy class action
• GameStop class action alleges digital games misrepresented as purchases