Starbucks is being sued for $5 million because the coffee chain charges extra for non-dairy milks and violates the ADA, lactose-intolerant customers say.
California residents Maria Bolliger, Dawn Miller and Shunda Smith all have lactose intolerance or a milk allergy, which causes the price of their coffee to skyrocket, they say. Now, they’re fighting back by filing a federal lawsuit against the coffee giant.
The three women claim Starbucks discriminates against them and other lactose-intolerant customers by charging extra for lactose-free milks.
At Starbucks, a non-dairy milk costs an extra 70 cents. In some areas, like New York, non-dairy milks like oat, almond, soy, and coconut cost 90 cents more.
The lawsuit also claims that there is no valid reason for the increase in prices of non-dairy milks, since the cost of the milks is comparable.
Starbucks is being sued in a $5 million class-action lawsuit because it charges extra for non-dairy milks. Pictured: TikTok video bemoans extra fees for non-dairy milk
At Starbucks, a non-dairy milk costs an extra 70 cents. In some areas, like New York, non-dairy milks like oat, almond, soy, and coconut cost 90 cents more.
“These are people with lactose intolerance, which is recognized as a disability by (the Americans with Disability Act),” Keith Gibson, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said in court. Los Angeles Times. “This lawsuit is about discrimination. »
Lactose intolerance can cause severe stomach pain, inflammation of the digestive tract, intestinal irregularities and even vomiting. The condition is considered a disability as of 2008.
“Starbucks created a separate, more expensive menu aimed at customers who cannot ingest milk,” the lawsuit claims.
Other dietary requirements can be modified free of charge at the coffee chain, including sugar-free sweeteners for people with diabetes, as well as caffeine-free options and other types of dairy milks, including 2 percent, whole, half -half and fat. free skimmed milk.
The lawsuit also finds no real difference in price between the milks. At the time of filing, the price of whole milk was between $0.03 and $0.05 per fluid ounce, half and half was between $0.09 and $0.19 per fluid ounce, and heavy cream was between 0.17 and $0.32 per fluid ounce.
California residents Maria Bolliger, Dawn Miller and Shunda Smith all have lactose intolerance or a milk allergy, causing the price of their coffee to skyrocket.
Lactose intolerance was designated a disability by the ADA in 2008. “Starbucks created a separate, more expensive menu aimed at customers who cannot ingest milk,” the lawsuit claims.
Yet coconut, oat, and soy milk only sells for between $0.06 and $0.07 per fluid ounce. Likewise, almond milk sells for between $0.04 and $0.07 per fluid ounce.
The lawsuit further claims that the additional fees are disproportionate to the retail price of non-dairy milks. “In 2023, the average price of a Starbucks coffee drink was $3.25, so the surcharge could reach up to 40% of the average drink price. »
Starbucks made more than $1 billion in the United States by charging extra for non-dairy milks, according to the lawsuit.
“Based on information and belief, Starbucks earned more than $1 billion in the United States through discriminatory and illegal surcharge collection during the class period.”
DailyMail.com has contacted Starbucks for comment on the lawsuit.
“We cannot comment on pending litigation,” a Starbucks spokesperson said.
They added: “At U.S. Starbucks stores, at no additional cost, customers can add up to four ounces of plant-based milk to hot or iced brewed coffee or tea, cold brew beverages, and American beverages.
“Starbucks Rewards members can also redeem 25 stars to substitute plant-based milk in any beverage when it is not part of the standard recipe.”
Dunkin Donuts was the subject of a similar lawsuit in early 2024, in which customers pointed out that ordering plant-based or lactose-free milk cost them between 50 cents and $2.15 more per drink compared to those who ordered cow’s milk.
Arlene Kanter, head of the Disability Law and Policy Program at Syracuse University, says the plaintiffs have a strong case because lactose intolerance meets the definition of disability.
The Nashville protest shut down an entire street on West End Avenue, attracting more than a dozen police cars on August 18.
Starbucks has also faced backlash for charging extra for non-dairy milks in the past. In 2022, vegan protesters went so far as to encase themselves in cement outside the cafe to protest a 50 cent fee on plant-based milk which “discriminates against people who care about the plight of cows”.
PETA said it would not back down from its position and asked Starbucks to stop lambasting people “concerned about cows.”
The protest followed a letter from Sir Paul McCartney, in which he urged Starbucks to “stop charging for plant-based milk”.
Starbucks was recently sued for claiming its coffee was 100% ethical, despite being sourced from human rights-violating farms on multiple continents.
A lawsuit was filed earlier this year in federal court in Washington, DC, on behalf of American consumers, against the world’s largest coffee company for its “deceptive” marketing.
The lawsuit claims that Starbucks knowingly sources its tea and coffee from suppliers with “serious and documented human and labor rights violations,” while claiming in their marketing and on their packaging that they are 100 % ethical.
Kenya, Guatemala and Brazil are among the countries where Starbucks sources its products.
Guatemala is Central America’s second-largest coffee exporter – after Honduras – and its arabica beans are favored by the US coffee giant.
Starbucks has denied the allegations.