Starbucks Lawsuit Alleges Surcharge for Non-Dairy Milk Alternatives Is Discriminatory

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Starbucks faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the worldwide coffee chain has illegally discriminated against certain consumers by charging extra for drinks containing non-dairy milk alternatives, including soy, oat, coconut or almond milk. 

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here. 

The 18-page non-dairy milk surcharge lawsuit says that some consumers, including the plaintiffs, are lactose intolerant, meaning it is medically necessary for them to avoid consuming products that contain milk. Per the case, Starbucks has charged the plaintiffs and similarly situated customers an extra $0.50 to $0.80 to substitute plant-based or lactose-free milk for the standard 2% milk that comes in most drinks, even though there is “no material difference” between the price of lactose-containing milks and some non-dairy alternatives. 

In fact, the filing alleges Starbucks has effectively created “a separate, higher-priced menu, aimed at customers who cannot ingest milk,” noting that the company will substitute whole milk, half-and-half or fat-free skim milk for 2% milk for no additional cost. 

According to the complaint, Starbucks has discriminated against proposed class members by charging extra for non-dairy alternatives, in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

“The Non-Dairy Alternative Surcharge has real and practical consequences for consumers suffering from lactose intolerance and milk allergies,” the case emphasizes. 

Last year, the average price of a Starbucks coffee drink was $3.25, the lawsuit relays, meaning the non-dairy alternative surcharge could account for around 40 percent of the average drink price. Moreover, the filing highlights that because milk “is not the only ingredient” in Starbucks drinks, the non-dairy alternative surcharge amounts to “an even higher percentage proportional to the price of milk” included in each drink. 

As the suit tells it, there is no additional labor involved with swapping non-dairy alternatives into a customer’s Starbucks drink, and the retail cost of non-dairy alternatives is “not significant[ly] more than dairy products,” if at all, the case argues. 

“Accordingly, Non-Dairy Alternative Surcharges are not to defray the added costs of use of these ingredients,” the lawsuit says. “Instead, the Surcharges are designed to profit from those consumers with lactose intolerance and milk allergies. Indeed, only Non-Dairy Alternative [sic] incur a surcharge, when half-and-half, for example, may be more expensive than any other Non-Dairy Alternative.” 

The Starbucks lawsuit looks to cover all persons who suffer from lactose intolerance, or an intolerance to milk or milk-containing products, and bought drinks or other items from Starbucks within the last four years. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.