Starbucks is facing a proposed consumer class action in Washington federal court accusing the coffee giant of misleading customers by promoting its products as “100% ethically sourced” despite repeated reports of labor abuses at supplier farms worldwide.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, was brought by coffee purchasers Jennifer Williams of Washington state and David Strauss of New York. The plaintiffs allege that Starbucks Corp. marketed its coffee as ethically sourced to attract socially conscious consumers and justify higher prices, even as government agencies, journalists, and human rights groups documented forced labor, unsafe working conditions, and wage violations within its supply chain.
“This case seeks to hold Starbucks accountable for guaranteeing ethical sourcing when the documented reality shows otherwise,” the complaint states. The suit also claims Starbucks failed to disclose the presence of volatile organic compounds, including benzene and methylene chloride, in certain decaffeinated coffee products.
Williams and Strauss say they regularly purchased Starbucks coffee from grocery stores and other retailers and paid a premium based on the company’s ethical sourcing representations. They allege they would not have bought the products, or would have paid less, had they known about the alleged labor violations and chemical processing concerns.
According to the complaint, Starbucks has prominently displayed the phrase “Committed to 100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing” on product packaging for years. The company also promotes its Coffee and Farmer Equity Practices certification program, known as C.A.F.E. Practices, which it describes as having a zero tolerance policy for labor violations.
The plaintiffs allege that farms certified under the C.A.F.E. program have repeatedly been linked to serious labor and human rights abuses across multiple countries, including Brazil, China, Guatemala, and Mexico. The complaint cites findings by labor inspectors, nongovernmental organizations, and investigative journalists that allegedly documented violations while the farms retained Starbucks certification.
In one example, Brazil’s independent labor prosecutor opened a case in 2022 against coffee cooperative Cooxupé, identified as Starbucks’ largest supplier in Brazil, over allegations that workers were subjected to excessive hours and forced to carry extremely heavy loads. The lawsuit also references reports by China Labor Watch alleging child labor, excessive work schedules, lack of protective equipment, and exposure to hazardous chemicals at farms linked to Starbucks’ supply chain.
The plaintiffs assert claims for common law fraud and violations of state consumer protection laws. They seek to represent classes of consumers in Washington and New York who purchased Starbucks coffee products dating back to 2016, along with proposed subclasses of customers who bought decaffeinated products.
The suit seeks monetary damages, restitution, and court orders barring Starbucks from marketing its coffee as fully ethically sourced. It also asks the court to require disclosures regarding alleged chemical residues in decaffeinated coffee.
“Starbucks has gone to great lengths to conceal the reality behind its labels,” said Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, counsel for the plaintiffs. “The company continues to profit while hiding the true conditions in its supply chain and its chemical processing practices.”
Starbucks denied the allegations. A company spokesperson said the lawsuit mischaracterizes both its sourcing practices and the integrity of its C.A.F.E. certification program.
“We take these claims seriously, but we strongly disagree with the assertions made and believe they are inaccurate,” the spokesperson said in an email response.
The lawsuit follows earlier legal challenges to Starbucks’ ethical sourcing claims. Consumer advocates and plantation workers have previously accused the company of benefiting from labor exploitation at supplier farms, including claims involving debt bondage and coercive working conditions.
Starbucks states on its website that its C.A.F.E. Practices program evaluates suppliers based on economic, social, and environmental criteria, supported by third party verification and hundreds of performance indicators designed to protect workers and farming communities.
Williams and Strauss are represented by Steve W. Berman, Catherine Y.N. Gannon, and Ani Zotti of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, along with Kim E. Richman of Richman Law and Policy.
The case is Jennifer Williams et al. v. Starbucks Corp., case number 2:26-cv-00112, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
