Starbucks Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Coffee Not Ethically Sourced And Contains Industrial Solvents—Case Filed January 2026 After Years Of Similar Claims

A class action lawsuit filed January 13, 2026, claims Starbucks misled shoppers with “100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing” claims while allegedly sourcing beans from farms with documented labor violations and failed to disclose industrial solvents in decaf products. Two consumers—Jennifer Williams and David Strauss—sued in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of nationwide consumers.

Here’s what makes this case different: it’s not just about ethical sourcing anymore. The lawsuit alleges Starbucks decaf coffee contains chemicals you’d never expect in your morning cup.

Who Filed The Lawsuit And What Do They Claim

Jennifer Williams from Ferndale, Washington, and David Strauss from Irvington, New York, filed the proposed class action through Seattle law firm Hagens Berman. The complaint challenges two separate issues: Starbucks’ prominent “Committed to 100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing” claim printed on packaging, and undisclosed volatile organic compounds (VOCs) allegedly detected in decaffeinated products.

The lawsuit accuses Starbucks of deceptive marketing by labeling coffee as ethically sourced while allegedly sourcing from farms with documented labor and human rights violations. According to court filings, investigations by labor inspectors and journalists documented unsafe conditions, wage theft, child labor, and forced labor at farms certified under Starbucks’ Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices program.

The second claim focuses on decaf coffee. Independent testing detected benzene, toluene, and methylene chloride in at least one decaffeinated coffee product, according to the complaint. These are industrial solvents—not ingredients consumers expect when labels say “100% Arabica coffee.”

The Chemical Testing Results That Shocked Consumers

Here’s where things get concerning for decaf drinkers. Testing arranged by plaintiffs’ attorneys in January 2025 allegedly found three specific chemicals in Starbucks Decaf House Blend medium roast coffee: benzene, toluene, and methylene chloride.

Benzene was detected at levels higher than the EPA considers safe, according to court documents. Toluene was detected at 87 parts per billion, which is not authorized for use as a food ingredient and is commonly linked to industrial processes rather than coffee.

Methylene chloride is particularly notable because it’s actually used in the coffee industry for decaffeination. But the lawsuit argues consumers aren’t told about this. The complaint emphasizes that many people choose decaf for health reasons—pregnancy, caffeine sensitivity, medical conditions—making chemical disclosure critically important.

What Starbucks Says About The Allegations

Starbucks denies the claims entirely. In an emailed statement, Starbucks said it takes the allegations seriously but firmly believes they are inaccurate and misrepresent both sourcing practices and the integrity of the C.A.F.E. Practices program.

The company points to its 20-year C.A.F.E. Practices verification program developed with Conservation International. Starbucks maintains it audits farms regularly and terminates supplier relationships when violations are reported.

This Isn’t The First Lawsuit About Starbucks’ Ethical Claims

The Williams and Strauss lawsuit follows a similar case filed two years earlier. In January 2024, the National Consumers League (NCL) filed a lawsuit alleging Starbucks falsely claims “100% ethical” coffee and tea sourcing in D.C. Superior Court.

That case survived a major legal test. In August 2025, a D.C. judge denied Starbucks’ motion to dismiss, allowing the NCL case to move forward. The ruling meant NCL could proceed with claims that Starbucks’ sustainability messaging doesn’t match supplier realities.

The NCL lawsuit cited specific incidents: Brazilian labor prosecutors in 2022 issued complaints against Starbucks’ largest Brazilian supplier, citing working conditions analogous to slavery. The complaint also referenced BBC reporting about sexual abuse at a Kenyan tea plantation that supplied to Starbucks.

What You Must Know

What The Lawsuit Seeks From Starbucks

The Williams and Strauss complaint seeks monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. Beyond monetary damages, the lawsuit seeks to compel Starbucks to disclose the presence of VOCs in products and to stop marketing coffee as “100% ethically sourced” unless that claim is true.

If the court certifies this as a class action, it could represent millions of Starbucks customers nationwide who purchased coffee products based on ethical sourcing claims or bought decaf without knowing about potential chemical content.

Current Status Of The Case

The lawsuit was filed January 13, 2026, in federal court. It’s in early stages—no class certification yet, no rulings on motions, no settlement discussions publicly disclosed.

Starbucks will likely file a motion to dismiss, similar to its strategy in the NCL case. That motion failed in the earlier lawsuit, but each case stands on its own legal merits. Discovery hasn’t begun, meaning plaintiffs haven’t yet obtained internal Starbucks documents about sourcing audits or chemical testing.

What C.A.F.E. Practices Actually Requires

Understanding what Starbucks promises helps evaluate the lawsuit’s claims. C.A.F.E. Practices is labeled as Starbucks’ “cornerstone of ethical sourcing approach” and includes economic, social, and environmental criteria.

The verification program includes zero-tolerance criteria requiring immediate corrective action, plus major and minor criteria that must be addressed within one year if violations are found. Starbucks developed C.A.F.E. Practices with Conservation International, a global organization that partners with major corporations on sustainability issues.

But the lawsuits challenge whether certification actually prevents labor abuses in practice. Critics point out that audits happen infrequently, advance notice is given even for “unannounced” visits, and farms pay the third-party verifiers—creating potential conflicts of interest.

Legal Implications For Consumer Protection

These cases test important questions about corporate sustainability claims. Can companies be held legally accountable when their marketing emphasizes ethical practices but investigations uncover supplier violations? When does a certification program’s existence protect a company from liability, and when does documented evidence of ongoing problems override those protections?

The lawsuits cite violations of Washington and New York consumer protection statutes plus common law fraud. The complaint states plaintiffs assert claims under Washington and New York consumer protection statutes and for common law fraud, seeking damages, restitution, and injunctive relief.

For the chemical disclosure claims, the legal theory centers on reasonable consumer expectations. When a label says “100% Arabica coffee,” do consumers reasonably expect that means only coffee, with no industrial processing chemicals? The lawsuit argues yes—especially for health-conscious decaf buyers.

What To Do Next

How To Access Court Documents About The Case

Court filings are publicly available through the federal court system’s PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) service. The Williams and Strauss case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington as Case No. pending official case number assignment.

You can also find case information through the law firm representing plaintiffs. Hagens Berman maintains a case page at hbsslaw.com with complaint details and updates.

The earlier National Consumers League case is in D.C. Superior Court. Federal court records show it was initially removed to federal court before being remanded back to D.C. Superior Court in January 2025.

Where To Find Verified Reporting On The Allegations

Multiple news organizations have covered these allegations with access to court documents and company statements. Daily Coffee News, KIRO 7, The Seattle Times, and CNN have all published detailed reports based on complaint filings and interviews.

For the chemical testing claims specifically, court documents should eventually include the actual lab reports showing what testing was performed, by whom, and what levels of compounds were detected. These documents become public through discovery if the case proceeds.

When Legal Counsel May Be Appropriate

If you’re a Starbucks customer concerned about these allegations, individual legal consultation generally isn’t necessary at this stage. Class action lawsuits proceed with lead plaintiffs and their attorneys representing the entire class.

However, you might consult an attorney if you experienced specific documented harm—for example, if you relied on Starbucks’ ethical claims in making purchasing decisions and can show financial damages, or if you’re a decaf consumer with health concerns about chemical exposure and have medical documentation.

Class members typically receive notice if a case is certified, with options to stay in the class, opt out and pursue individual claims, or object to proposed settlements.

Official Resources For Case Information

The settlement website (if any settlement eventually occurs) will be announced through official court notices. Be cautious of any websites requesting personal information or payment to join a class action—legitimate class actions never require payment from class members.

For updates on the case, monitor the Hagens Berman case page, check PACER for new filings, or follow legal news coverage from established media outlets. The court will hold hearings on key motions like class certification, which are typically announced in advance and may be open to public attendance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What specific farms or suppliers does the lawsuit identify?

The complaint references investigations documenting violations at C.A.F.E.-certified farms, but specific farm names haven’t been widely disclosed in public reporting. The National Consumers League’s earlier lawsuit cited Starbucks’ largest Brazilian supplier and Kenyan tea plantations, based on labor inspector reports and BBC investigative journalism.

Can I still buy Starbucks coffee while the lawsuit is pending?

Yes. The lawsuit doesn’t restrict Starbucks from selling products. It challenges the company’s marketing claims and seeks changes to labeling practices, along with compensation for consumers who allegedly relied on those claims. Consumers can make their own purchasing decisions based on available information.

How long do class action lawsuits like this typically take?

Consumer class actions usually take 2-5 years from filing to resolution. The process includes motion practice (dismissal motions, class certification), discovery (document exchange and depositions), settlement negotiations or trial, and appeals. The National Consumers League case filed in January 2024 is still ongoing two years later.

What’s the difference between the 2026 lawsuit and the 2024 NCL case?

Both challenge Starbucks’ ethical sourcing claims, but they’re separate lawsuits filed by different parties in different courts. The Williams and Strauss case adds the chemical disclosure claims about decaf products, which weren’t part of the NCL lawsuit. If both cases succeed, they could result in separate settlements or verdicts.

Does Starbucks still use methylene chloride for decaffeination?

The lawsuit alleges methylene chloride was detected in testing but doesn’t claim Starbucks directly uses it in decaffeination. The complaint suggests chemicals could be “introduced during decaffeination, manufacturing or packaging.” Starbucks hasn’t publicly disclosed its current decaffeination methods in response to these specific allegations.

Are other coffee companies facing similar lawsuits?

These lawsuits appear specific to Starbucks’ particular “100% ethical sourcing” claims and C.A.F.E. Practices certification program. Other companies with sustainability certifications could face similar scrutiny if evidence emerges of violations among certified suppliers, but no identical cases against other major coffee chains have been widely reported.

If I want to check if I qualify for potential compensation, what should I do?

No action is needed now. If the court certifies this as a class action and a settlement is reached or plaintiffs win at trial, eligible class members will receive official notice by mail or email with instructions for filing claims. Save receipts showing Starbucks coffee purchases if you’re concerned about documenting eligibility.

Last Updated: January 21, 2026

Disclaimer: This article provides information about pending litigation based on court filings and verified reporting—it is not legal advice.

Stay informed about consumer class actions affecting everyday products. Bookmark this page for updates on the Starbucks case and explore our coverage of other class action lawsuit developments.

Stay informed, stay protected. — AllAboutLawyer.com

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah