Three Starbucks customers are suing the coffee chain giant over a surcharge for non-dairy milk alternatives in Starbucks beverages. Maria Bollinger, Dawn Miller and Shunda Smith — all California residents — filed a lawsuit earlier this month in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging Starbucks discriminated against people with lactose intolerance by tacking on extra fees for non-dairy substitutes.
According to the complaint obtained by CBS News, the plaintiffs are lactose-intolerant or have milk allergies and have ordered coffee-based, tea-based and other beverages at Starbucks stores in California since 2018. They are seeking $5 million in damages.
“Starbucks charges customers with lactose intolerance and milk allergies an excessively high surcharge to substitute non-dairy alternatives in its drinks,” the lawsuit alleges. “In this way, the defendant's conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and constitutes common law Unjust Enrichment.”
The plaintiffs claim they were charged an additional 50 cents to 80 cents on beverages that contained non-dairy milk, including soy, almond, coconut, oat and other plant-based milks. The surcharges only exist to make a profit off of customers with lactose intolerance, the lawsuit states.
Within the US, most non-dairy milks cost more than dairy milk because the government subsidizes the dairy industry. That has only increased in recent years due to the pandemic, which hit dairy producers and regional dairy processors hard. In March 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced an additional investment of $80 million in the Dairy Business Innovation (DBI) Initiatives. The DBI previously awarded $18.4 million to three current Initiatives at University of Tennessee, Vermont Agency for Food and Marketing and University of Wisconsin, and $1.8 million to a new initiative at California State University Fresno.
That being said, the actual price differences per ounce of non-dairy milk versus regular milk aren’t that drastic in comparison. Bon Appetit reported that as of last year, the least expensive store-bought whole milk from Walmart was two cents per ounce, while almond milk was four cents per ounce and oat was six cents per ounce. Coffee shops, however, are using those differences to their advantage, increasing their upcharges to the point where a non-dairy latte can cost anywhere between $10 to $15.
The lawsuit further argues that Starbucks, which uses 2% cow's milk in most of its coffee-based beverages, will substitute whole milk, half-and-half, or fat-free skim milk for free. Same with sugar-free sweeteners, which can be added in lieu of regular sugar for no additional cost.
“There is no expertise or additional work required of Starbucks employees that would substitute whole milk or fat-free milk in place of 2% regular milk, or who would make caffeine-free or sugar-free beverages, to also be able to substitute non-dairy alternatives such as soy, almond, coconut, oat, or other lactose-free 'milk' in place of 2% regular milk,” per the claim.
This isn’t the first time Starbucks is being slammed for its non-dairy surcharge. In 2020, the company came under fire for its so-called “vegan tax.” Activists staged nationwide protests — including in Arlington, Virginia; San Diego, California; Portland, Oregon; and New York City, New York — inside Starbucks coffee shops with signs lambasting the company’s plant-based fees. The animal rights organization PETA, which announced in 2019 that it had purchased the minimum number of shares in the company to attend Starbucks’ annual shareholder meeting, also joined the fight.
The plaintiffs in the recent lawsuit are represented by Keith Gibson Law, the same firm representing 10 plaintiffs that filed a class-action lawsuit against Dunkin’ Donuts in December. Similar to the Starbucks case, Dunkin is being accused of discriminating against lactose-intolerant customers for having them pay up to $2 extra when requesting oat or almond milk in their beverages.
