Starbucks Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over '100% Ethical Sourcing' Claims – CoffeeTalk

Starbucks is currently facing a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit, brought forth by Jennifer Williams and David Strauss on behalf of consumers nationwide, claims that Starbucks misled customers regarding its ethical sourcing practices and failed to disclose harmful chemicals found in decaffeinated coffee products. The plaintiffs accuse the company of deceptive marketing, particularly for promoting its coffee with the label “Committed to 100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing,” despite allegedly sourcing beans from farms reported to have labor and human rights violations.

The lawsuit also highlights the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including benzene, toluene, and methylene chloride, in certain decaffeinated coffee products. These VOCs are typically associated with industrial solvents and are not expected in food items, raising health concerns. Starbucks has responded to the allegations by asserting that they misrepresent the company’s sourcing practices and the integrity of its Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices program.

The complaint emphasizes that Starbucks has long used the “Committed to 100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing” label on coffee packaging sold in stores, online, and through third-party retailers. The plaintiffs argue that Starbucks’ marketing materials imply that its coffee is produced without forced labor, child labor, or unsafe working conditions, suggesting that any violations are uncommon. However, they cite numerous investigative reports revealing unsafe conditions and labor violations in farms certified under the C.A.F.E. Practices program across various countries, including Brazil, Guatemala, China, and Mexico.

In addition to ethical sourcing claims, the lawsuit scrutinizes Starbucks’ decaffeinated coffee, asserting that independent tests found VOCs present in these products. The plaintiffs contend that the labels indicating “100% Arabica coffee” mislead consumers into believing the coffee is free from chemicals. The lawsuit argues that Starbucks has failed to communicate that industrial solvents can be introduced during the decaffeination process.

The plaintiffs, who relied on Starbucks’ ethical sourcing claims when making purchases, allege they paid premium prices under the assumption the products were ethically sourced and free from harmful chemicals. They assert that if they had been aware of the true sourcing practices and chemical presence, they would have either refrained from buying these products or paid less for them.

Consequently, the lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and a change to Starbucks’ marketing practices. The plaintiffs request that the court forbids Starbucks from labeling its coffee as “100% ethically sourced” unless accurate and fully qualified, and they demand mandatory disclosure of VOCs in decaffeinated coffee products.

Read More @ KIRO7