Starbucks faces lawsuit over extra charges for non-dairy milk

Three Californians who can’t consume dairy say they pay extra prices for alternatives at coffee chains and claim a breach of civil rights law.

Introduction:

Starbucks finds itself embroiled in controversy as three customers from California file a $5 million class-action lawsuit against the coffee giant. 

The lawsuit alleges that Starbucks’ practice of charging extra for non-dairy milk discriminates against lactose-intolerant individuals, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and California civil rights law.

The Allegations:

The complaint, filed in federal court in Fresno, California, contends that Starbucks imposes an additional fee of $0.50 to $0.80 per drink for soy, oat, coconut, or almond milk. 

According to the plaintiffs, this surcharge unfairly penalizes customers with lactose intolerance, creating a separate, higher-priced menu for individuals who cannot consume dairy products.

Legal Basis:

Keith Gibson, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, asserts that lactose intolerance qualifies as a protected disability under the law. He argues that Starbucks’ pricing policy for non-dairy milk constitutes illegal discrimination, affecting millions of consumers nationwide.

Customer Perspective:

Also read: MICRON’S POSITIVE OUTLOOK BOOSTS CHIP SECTOR

The plaintiffs, who are lactose intolerant, argue that the extra charge for milk alternatives does not reflect substantially higher retail prices for these options. 

They contend that Starbucks’ pricing policy unfairly targets individuals with dietary restrictions, making it more expensive for them to enjoy their favorite beverages.

Starbucks’ Response:

While Starbucks declined to comment on pending litigation, the company defended its current approach to charging for non-dairy milk. 

Starbucks stated that customers in US stores can add up to four ounces of non-dairy milk to certain beverages at no extra cost. However, customization with non-dairy milk incurs an additional charge, similar to other beverage modifications.

Implications and Debate:

The lawsuit raises important questions about fairness and accessibility in the food and beverage industry. It highlights the ongoing debate over pricing practices and the treatment of individuals with dietary restrictions. As the legal proceedings unfold, Starbucks faces scrutiny over its policies and their impact on consumers.