What the D.C. judge actually decided
The court framed the dispute under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), a statute designed “to assure that a just mechanism exists to remedy all improper trade practices” and to establish “an enforceable right to truthful information.” The CPPA is to be “construed and applied liberally” to effectuate that purpose, the judge wrote, citing §28-3901.
Starbucks argued that its statements about being “committed to” ethical sourcing are aspirational, amount to non-actionable “puffery,” and wouldn’t be taken by a reasonable consumer to mean the company has a perfect supply chain. The court declined to resolve that defense at the pleading stage, holding that this is not the rare case where the statements are so obviously puffery that no reasonable consumer would believe them, and that whether the statements are puffery is for the factfinder (the jury) to decide.
The judge also rejected a First Amendment shield at this juncture, noting that the speech at issue is commercial speech about goods, and that the CPPA can regulate misleading commercial claims. Citing D.C. precedent, the court deemed Starbucks’ First Amendment argument a “non-starter.”
Finally, Starbucks’ statute-of-limitations point (that some challenged statements pre-dated January 2021) didn’t carry the day. Because the complaint alleges ongoing practices and plenty of conduct within the limitations window, the court said it didn’t need to strike older allegations to decide the motion.
