Starbucks Facing Lawsuit Over Allegations of Trafficking, Forced Labor on Brazilian Suppliers’ Coffee Farms

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit accuses Starbucks of relying upon “massive trafficking, child slavery, and forced labor” within its Brazilian supply lines, with coffee harvesters working amid “slavery-like conditions.”

Get the latest open class action lawsuits sent to your inbox. Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.

The 100-page Starbucks lawsuit alleges that although the coffee giant prominently assures the public that it relies on ethical sourcing programs and invests in socially responsible and sustainable practices, the company nevertheless knowingly profits from an “entrenched system of trafficking and forced labor” on its supplier farms in Brazil.

The class action suit charges that Starbucks’ ethically minded representations are not only deceptive but “extremely cruel and cynical,” and that the company is a “worldwide offender of human rights law.”

The case alleges Starbucks is responsible for rampant trafficking, child slavery and forced labor, and “thriving based largely on its ill-gotten gains.” Per the lawsuit, working conditions are dismal across its coffee-harvesting operations in Brazil and around the world and directly contribute to environmental devastation.

The Starbucks lawsuit was filed by a group of coffee harvesters, including a minor, who were allegedly trafficked and forced to work on plantations in Brazil that are members of Cooxupé, a farm cooperative and Tier 1 supplier to Starbucks. As the filing tells it, Cooxupé is known to have “serious forced labor and child labor issues.”

The plaintiffs say they were trafficked by illegal labor brokers called “gatos,” who reportedly recruit workers by making false promises of good conditions and high pay, often advancing funds for food, travel and equipment. However, upon arrival at the plantations, laborers’ work permits are withheld, and they are forced to work off their debts harvesting coffee under “miserable” conditions, the suit relays. The facilities and lodging spaces often lack running water, mattresses or toilets, and workers must put in long hours without protective equipment for little pay, the case describes.

Despite the widely documented use of forced labor on these plantations, Starbucks continues to source a large portion of its coffee from the Brazilian suppliers, the complaint alleges.

The filing also claims that the company continues to “certify” farms known to commit labor and human rights violations under its Coffee and Farmer Equity Practices program, which evaluates and verifies suppliers based on qualities such as social responsibility and environmental leadership.

The class action lawsuit accuses Starbucks of aiding and abetting Cooxupé and other suppliers’ systematic violations of the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and Brazilian laws against trafficking and forced labor.

The suit charges that “despite having the industry control to effectively end such practices, Starbucks has willfully continued to permit trafficked and forced adult and child labor in its supply chains and has not taken meaningful action to improve its sourcing practices and to prevent these human rights violations.”

The case notes that Starbucks has faced consumer fraud lawsuits in the past over its allegedly misleading claims of ethical sourcing and sustainable practices. For example, the National Consumers League, a consumer advocacy organization, filed a suit in January 2024 challenging the company’s “100% ethical” coffee and tea sourcing claims, in light of evidence linking the supplying farms to labor and human rights violations, the complaint says.

The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals who, since April 24, 2015, reside or resided in Minas Gerais, Brazil, and were trafficked by a “gato” and forced to harvest coffee under slavery-like conditions on a Starbucks-supplying coffee plantation in Minas Gerais.

Want to learn how to start a class action lawsuit? We’ve got you covered.