On 18 June 2026, International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) re-filed a lawsuit against Starbucks in Seattle, Washington. The case concerns allegations that eight Brazilian coffee workers, including one child, were trafficked by labour brokers known as “gatos” and forced to work under abusive conditions on coffee farms allegedly linked to Starbucks’ Brazilian coffee supply chain.
The case hinges on two key points.
- First, although IRAdvocates does not allege a direct link between Starbucks and the specific farms where the plaintiffs were trafficked, it argues that Starbucks is still liable because those farms were members of Regional Coffee Growers’ Cooperative of Guaxupé (Cooxupé), a cooperative which is a direct supplier to Starbucks.
- Second, IRAdvocates asserts that Starbucks should have known about the risk of forced labour in its coffee supply chain, given widespread reporting of these issues in the coffee sector in Brazil, including the US Department of Labor’s List of Goods Produced by Forced and Child Labour, reports by NGOs including Oxfam Brasil and Danwatch, and the Brazilian Ministry of Labour (reported by Repórter Brasil). Additionally, the complaint references a 2022 case where Cooxupé was accused of trafficking 30 migrant workers, with Brazilian authorities confirming forced labour and rescuing two of the plaintiffs from one of its farms.
Forced labour allegations
Allegations raised in the case related to the ILO’s forced labour indicators include:
- Debt bondage: Labour brokers, acting on behalf of employers, allegedly charged several plaintiffs for harvesting equipment—such as coffee picker machines, boots, goggles, and gloves—as well as transportation to the farm and groceries. In some instances, these deductions exceeded the workers’ earnings, leaving them in debt.
- Isolation: Plaintiffs were reportedly transported to farms covertly (“clandestine transportation”) and not properly registered as workers, in violation of legal employment practices.
- Abusive working and living conditions: Workers were allegedly exposed to extreme weather conditions, high temperatures, loud noise and intense vibration from stripping machines, venomous animals, and pesticides—all without personal protective equipment. The complaint also notes that the physically strenuous nature of the work posed risks of musculoskeletal injuries. Workers were housed in what the complaint describes as “inhospitable” dormitories, marked by poor bedding quality, a lack of running water, and either inadequate or entirely absent toilet facilities.
- Excessive overtime: Plaintiffs were reportedly required to work daily from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., including Saturdays, without receiving legally mandated overtime pay.
- Withholding of wages: Wages were systematically undercounted, as pay was based on the weight of harvested coffee, and workers were not fairly compensated for the full amount collected.
Legal basis
IRAdvocates first filed the case in April 2025 in Washington, D.C. On 17 February 2026, that court dismissed the case on personal jurisdiction grounds; this means that the court ruled that it was not the appropriate court to hear the case because Starbucks is based in Washington State. IRAdvocates subsequently re-filed the lawsuit in Seattle, where Starbucks is headquartered.
The plaintiffs are bringing the claims primarily under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), which allows plaintiffs to sue US companies for impacts abroad. IRAdvocates has previously brought cases under this legislation, but recent cases have been unsuccessful, with the courts narrowing the interpretation of the law. For example, a 2022 case against Nestlé, Cargill, Barry Callebaut, Mars, Olam, Hershey and Mondelēz was dismissed by a US court due to the lack of a traceable connection between the defendant companies and the victims.
The plaintiffs are bringing the case in the US rather than Brazil because there is no claim available for civil damages; additionally, there is fear of retaliation by the gatos and the farm owners. The identities of the migrant workers, including their countries of origin, have been kept anonymous.