On 7 May 2025, Richman Law & Policy filed a class action complaint against Starbucks. The complaint follows earlier litigation brought against Starbucks by International Rights Advocates (IR Advocates) on 24 April. The new complaint alleges that Starbucks makes misleading representations regarding human rights, sustainability and the safety of its coffee. It references Starbucks’ corporate policies and marketing materials, including claims made in partnership with third parties such as Conservation International, which is named on Starbucks coffee packaging in connection with sustainability and human rights representations. The case has been filed before the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint centres around three claims by Starbucks:
- Human rights representations – that its products are sourced consistently with stringent human rights standards developed by and enforced in partnership with Conservation International, including prohibitions on forced and child labour
- Sustainability representations – that the products are sourced sustainably, with concern for the climate and deforestation, biodiversity and waste, and in pursuit of significant emissions and waste reduction goals by 2030 and net zero by 2050
- Safe and effective representations – that its Decaf House Blend Medium Roast is decaffeinated using a process that is “safe and effective,” and that the resulting coffee’s only ingredient is arabica coffee
The complaint cites Starbucks’ own corporate policies including its Code of Conduct and Human Rights Policy and claims made within its marketing materials and product packaging. The NGO Conservation International is named on Starbucks coffee packaging alongside human rights and sustainability representations. The complaint alleges that Conservation International, in partnership with Starbucks and in its own material, makes misleading human rights and sustainability representations about Starbucks’ coffee sourcing, but the complaint is raised against Starbucks only. Starbucks has worked with Conservation International since 1998.
The complaint contends that the representations above are false, deceptive and misleading and in violation of New York’s General Business Law. It cites investigations by a number of organisations including SOMO, Repórter Brasil, Coffee Watch and China Labor Watch to explain the factual inaccuracy of Starbucks’ representations.
Additional context
This follows a case brought in April by International Rights Advocates against Starbucks, on behalf of migrant workers in Brazil, alleging forced labour and trafficking on coffee plantations supplying the company. For more information on this case see our previous alert here. A petition was also submitted in April to US Customs and Border Protection by Coffee Watch, a nonprofit watchdog organisation that monitors and promotes ethical and sustainable practices in the coffee industry. The petition sought a withhold release order on Brazilian coffee linked to forced labour which includes Starbucks and other brands.
This is not the first greenwashing case brought against Starbucks. In January 2024, the National Consumers League (NCL) filed a complaint in the District of Columbia alleging that Starbucks misleads consumers by marketing its tea and coffee as “100% ethically sourced,” despite evidence of labour abuses at certified suppliers. The case challenges the credibility of Starbucks’ sourcing claims and remains ongoing. For more information on this case see out previous alert here.
Companies often use certification and assurance schemes to support claims about ethical sourcing and sustainability, but these have increasingly been scrutinised in legal complaints. For example, in Corporate Accountability Lab v. The Hershey Company and Rainforest Alliance (2021), the Corporate Accountability Lab alleged that Hershey’s use of the Rainforest Alliance seal misled consumers by suggesting its chocolate products were sustainably sourced. Similar concerns were raised in Consumer v. Mondelēz in California, Commodore v. H&M, and other cases where plaintiffs argued that certification schemes were used to support marketing claims that did not align with actual practices.
Richman Law & Policy is a New York-based public interest law firm that specialises in food-focused class action and non-profit representation. The firm is focused on consumer class actions, consumer watchdog actions and civil rights litigation.
Conservation International is a non-profit organisation focusing on responsible and sustainable business practices.