On 24 April, International Rights Advocates filed a lawsuit against Starbucks on behalf of eight migrant workers in Brazil, including one child. The case was raised before a US Court and alleges forced labour and trafficking on coffee plantations supplying Starbucks. IRAdvocates worked alongside advocacy group, Coffee Watch, which simultaneously filed a complaint with CBP under the Tariff Act, requesting a Withold Release Order.
On 24 April, International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) filed a lawsuit against Starbucks in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of eight migrant workers in Brazil, including one child. The complaint alleges the plaintiffs were trafficked by labour brokers (“gatos”) and forced to work under abusive conditions on coffee plantations linked to a Starbucks supplier.
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 the farms were members of Cooxupé, a cooperative that supplies coffee directly to Starbucks. Second, IRAdvocates asserts that Starbucks should have known about the risk of forced labour in its coffee supply chain due to previous investigations and media articles.
About the case
Specific allegations raised in the case 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.
- Unregistered employment: Plaintiffs were reportedly transported to farms covertly (“clandestine transportation”) and not properly registered as workers, in violation of legal employment practices.
- Serious health risks: 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.
- Inhumane living conditions: 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 working hours: Plaintiffs were reportedly required to work daily from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., including Saturdays, without receiving legally mandated overtime pay.
- Wage manipulation: 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.
IRAdvocates alleges that Starbucks knew or should have known about the use of forced and child labour on the farms it sources from in Brazil due to 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 Reporter 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.
IRAdvocates challenges the credibility of Starbucks’ C.A.F.E. certification programme, which they claim covers nearly 95% of its coffee. According to the complaint, despite claims of unannounced audits, inspections are reportedly given 24–48 hours’ notice.
Legal basis
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.
CBP Complaint
In parallel, the NGO Coffee Watch filed a petition with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to establish a WRO on coffee from Brazilian producers linked to forced labour. Under the Tariff Act 1930, CBP can issue WROs to block goods made in whole or in part with forced or child labour from entry into the United States. This petition targets imports by Starbucks as well as Nestlé, JDE, Dunkin’, Illy, and McDonald’s due to their sourcing from Brazil. The Tariff Act 1930 prohibits the importation of goods made using forced labour and allows for the seizure and detainment of goods suspected of being made with forced labour. The CBP Complaint relies largely on the same evidence presented above. Coffee Watch is a US-based non-profit advocacy organisation that conducts research into human rights abuses in the coffee sector.