Starbucks is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit that alleges the Seattle-based coffee giant misled consumers about ethical sourcing and failed to disclose chemicals found in some decaffeinated coffee products, according to a complaint filed in federal court.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, was brought by Jennifer Williams of Ferndale and David Strauss of Irvington, New York, on behalf of consumers nationwide.
It accuses Starbucks of deceptive marketing by prominently labeling its coffee as “Committed to 100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing” while allegedly sourcing beans from farms with documented labor and human rights violations.
The complaint also alleges Starbucks failed to disclose the presence of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, in certain decaffeinated coffee products, including chemicals such as benzene, toluene and methylene chloride.
Plaintiffs say these substances are commonly associated with industrial solvents and are not typically expected in food products.
KIRO 7 News has reached out to Starbucks for comment.
According to the complaint, Starbucks has for years printed “Committed to 100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing” on the front of its packaged coffee products sold in stores, online and through third-party retailers.
The company also references its Coffee and Farmer Equity, or C.A.F.E., Practices program and displays logos tied to its partnership with Conservation International, which the lawsuit says reinforces the impression of strong, independent oversight.
Plaintiffs argue those statements suggest Starbucks coffee is produced without forced labor, child labor or unsafe working conditions, and that violations are rare or nonexistent.
The lawsuit claims that impression is misleading.
The complaint cites investigations by labor inspectors, journalists and nonprofit organizations that documented unsafe conditions, wage theft, child labor and forced labor at farms certified under Starbucks’ C.A.F.E. Practices program.
Those reports span multiple years and countries, including Brazil, Guatemala, China and Mexico.
In some cases, the lawsuit alleges, farms retained C.A.F.E. certification even after government fines or labor rescues, or violations were discovered shortly after certification was renewed.
Plaintiffs say Starbucks continued to market its coffee as ethically sourced without qualifying those claims or disclosing the reported issues to consumers.
The lawsuit also focuses on Starbucks decaffeinated coffee products, including Decaf House Blend.
According to the complaint, independent testing detected VOCs such as benzene, toluene and methylene chloride in decaffeinated coffee beans.
Plaintiffs argue that Starbucks labels these products as containing “100% Arabica coffee,” which they say reasonably suggests a product made solely from coffee beans without added chemicals.
The lawsuit alleges Starbucks failed to disclose that industrial solvents may be introduced during decaffeination, manufacturing or packaging.
The complaint notes that decaffeinated coffee is often chosen for health reasons, including by pregnant consumers or people sensitive to caffeine, making chemical disclosures particularly important.
Williams and Strauss say they relied on Starbucks’ ethical sourcing claims when buying coffee at grocery stores and Starbucks locations in Washington and New York.
They allege they paid higher prices believing the products were ethically sourced and, in the case of decaf, free from undisclosed chemical solvents.
The lawsuit claims that had consumers known the full details, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages, restitution and injunctive relief.
They want Starbucks barred from marketing coffee as “100% ethically sourced” unless the claim is accurate and properly qualified, and they are asking the court to require disclosure of VOCs in decaffeinated coffee products.
©2026 Cox Media Group
