Two shoppers 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 large didn’t disclose alleged industrial solvents detected in at the very least one decaffeinated espresso product.

Filed Jan. 13 within the U.S. District Courtroom for the Western District of Washington, the go well with was introduced by Jennifer Williams of Ferndale, Washington, and David Strauss of Irvington, New York. 

In an emailed assertion to Every day Espresso Information, Starbucks stated, “We take the allegations raised within the Williams and Strauss lawsuit critically, 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 Allegations

On the heart of the criticism is Starbucks’ consumer-facing “100% moral sourcing” pledge, which is printed on packaged espresso and proven in different advertising and marketing supplies. 

The criticism 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 go well with factors to a 2022 Brazilian labor criticism involving Cooxupé, described as a cooperative that has supplied a serious share of Starbucks’ Brazil sourcing whereas holding C.A.F.E. Practices certification.

A number of the allegations outlined within the criticism echo a lawsuit filed in January 2024 by the Nationwide Shoppers 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 shopper 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. choose 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 unstable natural compounds (VOCs) that will have affected the buying selections of shoppers.  

The criticism states that the testing organized on behalf of the plaintiffs detected the chemical compounds benzene and toluene, in addition to methylene chloride. The latter is a chemical solvent that has been extensively used within the espresso business within the decaffeination course of.

Within the go well with, the plaintiffs don’t allege that Starbucks violated any federal food-safety regulation, exceeded any FDA residue restrict or failed to incorporate info required by federal legislation.

Nevertheless, they declare Starbucks engaged in “misleading omissions” that prompted folks 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 business information, subscribe to the DCN publication. 

Associated Posts