Starbucks Moves to Dismiss Brazilian Coffee Workers’ Forced Labor Putative Class Action in Washington Federal Court

Starbucks has asked a federal judge in Washington to throw out a putative class action brought by Brazilian coffee workers who say they were trafficked and forced to harvest coffee on farms that supplied the company. According to Law360, the motion was filed on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, and argues the workers have not shown that the plantations that employed them supplied Starbucks’s coffee.

The allegations below come from the workers’ court filings and have not been proven. Starbucks has not been found liable for anything, and no class has been certified. A motion to dismiss is a request, not a ruling.

Doe I v. Starbucks Corporation Quick Facts

Item	Detail
Case	Doe I et al. v. Starbucks Corporation
Court and number	U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, No. 2:26-cv-02126
Filed	June 18, 2026
Earlier case	Doe I v. Starbucks Corporation, No. 1:25-cv-01261 (D.D.C.), filed April 2025 and dismissed February 17, 2026
Plaintiffs	Eight Brazilian workers, one of them a minor suing through his mother, all using pseudonyms (John Doe I through VIII)
Plaintiffs’ counsel	Terrence P. Collingsworth, International Rights Advocates
Defendant	Starbucks Corporation
Main law invoked	Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), 18 U.S.C. § 1595
Other claims (per a published case description)	Aiding and abetting forced labor and trafficking under Brazilian law, unjust enrichment, negligent supervision
Latest development	Starbucks’s motion to dismiss, reported October 22, 2026 by Law360
Class certified?	No
Settlement or claim form	None
Status	Pending. I found no ruling on the motion and no hearing date.

What the Brazilian Coffee Workers Allege Against Starbucks

The workers say they live in Quilombo communities in the Jequitinhonha Valley region of Minas Gerais, Brazil. According to Judge Beryl Howell’s opinion in the earlier D.C. case and press descriptions of the new complaint, they allege:

• Between 2022 and 2024, each plaintiff was recruited by illegal Brazilian labor brokers known as “gatos,” who promised good pay and conditions, to work on one of eight coffee farms.
• On arrival, they were allegedly forced to harvest coffee through threats of bodily harm and debt bondage, and were later “rescued” by Brazilian officials. The time on the farms ranged from about eight days to over a month.
• Brazil later placed at least six of the eight farms on its “Dirty List,” the government’s list of employers found to use slave labor.
• Seven of the eight farms were members of Cooxupé, which the complaint describes as the world’s largest coffee cooperative. The workers allege Cooxupé supplied about 40% of the coffee exported from Brazil to Starbucks in the U.S. from 2021 to 2023.
• The eighth farm, they said, supplied another company that plaintiffs believed “with reasonable certainty” supplies Starbucks.
• The complaint points to Starbucks’s C.A.F.E. Practices ethical-sourcing program, saying that as of 2022 the company sourced 94.86% of its coffee from farms certified under it.

I did not have the Washington complaint itself, so I cannot confirm it repeats these allegations word for word. The descriptions above come from the D.C. opinion and published reports on the June 2026 filing. The Dirty List and farm details come from the pleadings and the court’s opinion. They are not findings that Starbucks itself committed forced labor.

Why the Workers Refiled Against Starbucks in Washington State

The workers first sued Starbucks alone in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in April 2025. They named no labor trafficker, farm or Cooxupé as a defendant. On February 17, 2026, Judge Howell granted Starbucks’s motion on one ground: she found the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Starbucks in D.C.

Her reasoning was that the workers are Brazilian residents alleging injuries in Brazil caused by Brazilian actors, and that Starbucks selling coffee in D.C. was not enough to tie those claims to the District. She did not decide whether the workers were trafficked and did not reach Starbucks’s other arguments.

Starbucks is incorporated and headquartered in Washington State. The workers refiled there on June 18, 2026, arguing that Starbucks’s Seattle headquarters makes the Western District of Washington the proper venue. The jurisdiction problem that ended the first case is unlikely to be the fight this time, which is consistent with the new motion’s reported focus on the supply chain.

Starbucks’s Motion to Dismiss the Brazilian Workers’ Forced Labor Suit

The filing itself is behind a paywall I could not access. As summarized by Law360, Starbucks argues the plaintiffs have not shown that the plantations that employed them supplied Starbucks’s beans. I did not verify any other ground in the motion.

That points to the central issue in supply-chain forced labor cases. The TVPRA’s civil remedy lets victims sue a defendant that knowingly benefited from participating in a venture that it knew or should have known was engaged in forced labor or trafficking. The workers must connect the farms where they worked to Starbucks’s purchases and show the knowledge and venture elements for each defendant. A court will decide whether the Washington complaint does that.

Related article: NAR $120.3M Homebuyer Commission Settlement, How to File Your Claim by October 27, 2026

What Starbucks Has Said Publicly About the Brazil Allegations

I found no public Starbucks statement on the Washington motion beyond the Law360 report. When the workers first sued in April 2025, Starbucks said it purchases coffee from only a small fraction of Cooxupé’s roughly 19,000 farm members, that all of its coffee comes from farms whose labor and environmental practices meet its standards, and that its verification program was developed with outside experts and includes regular third-party audits. Another outlet reported that Starbucks called the earlier claim “without merit.” Those statements responded to the earlier suit.

Federal Laws Behind the Starbucks Forced Labor Lawsuit

TVPRA Civil Remedy, 18 U.S.C. § 1595

Section 1595 lets a trafficking victim sue the perpetrator and anyone who knowingly benefited, or attempted or conspired to benefit, from participating in a venture that they knew or should have known violated the trafficking statutes. Whether Starbucks’s relationship with Cooxupé and its farms counts as participation in a “venture” is the likely battleground.

Forced Labor, 18 U.S.C. § 1589, and Trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 1590

Section 1589 prohibits obtaining labor by force, threats of serious harm, abuse of legal process or a scheme meant to make a person believe they would suffer serious harm if they stopped working. Debt bondage and threats of beating, as alleged here, are the kind of conduct these laws address. Whether the allegations meet each element is for the court.

Extraterritorial Reach, 18 U.S.C. § 1596

The workers’ injuries happened in Brazil. Section 1596 gives U.S. courts jurisdiction over certain trafficking offenses committed abroad when the offender is a U.S. national or present in the United States. Whether and how it applies to a corporate defendant in a civil case is a question defendants often raise.

Related Court Decisions on Supply-Chain Liability

In Doe v. Apple Inc., 96 F.4th 403 (D.C. Cir. 2024), the D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims over child labor in cobalt mining, reasoning that buying from a global supply chain was not “participation in a venture” under § 1595. In Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co., 35 F.4th 1159 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit, whose law governs the Western District of Washington, addressed the knowledge requirement for beneficiary liability under the TVPRA. In Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, 593 U.S. 628 (2021), the Supreme Court held that general corporate activity in the United States was not enough to bring an Alien Tort Statute claim over child slavery on cocoa farms abroad. The workers here sue under the TVPRA, not the Alien Tort Statute. These decisions show why supply-chain cases often turn on the link between the buyer and the abuse. They do not decide this case.

Brazilian Law and Common-Law Claims

A published description of the Washington complaint says it also brings a claim under Brazilian law for aiding and abetting forced labor and trafficking, plus unjust enrichment and negligent supervision. Check the operative complaint for the claims actually pleaded.

Procedural Rules

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Class certification, if the case reaches it, is governed by Rule 23.

What Could Happen Next in Doe I v. Starbucks

The court could:

1. Dismiss the complaint. The case could end in its current form, and the court may or may not allow the workers to amend.
2. Let the case proceed. If the judge finds the claims adequately pleaded, the case moves into later stages. That is not a finding that Starbucks broke the law.
3. Dismiss only some claims. A judge can find that some legal theories are insufficient while allowing others to go forward.

The workers will have a chance to respond. I did not find a hearing date or briefing schedule.

Doe I v. Starbucks Timeline

Date	Event
2022 to 2024	Period when the plaintiffs allege they were forced to work on the Brazilian farms
April 24, 2025	Workers sue Starbucks in the U.S. District Court for D.C.
February 17, 2026	D.C. court dismisses for lack of personal jurisdiction
June 18, 2026	Workers refile in the Western District of Washington
October 21, 2026	Starbucks files motion to dismiss (per Law360)

Other Starbucks Lawsuits Covered by AllAboutLawyer

A separate consumer class action over Starbucks’s “100% ethical” coffee-sourcing statements was filed in the same federal court on January 13, 2026 by Hagens Berman. It is a different case with different plaintiffs and does not seek relief for Brazilian farm workers. I have not verified its current status. Starbucks is also facing other consumer suits.

• Starbucks Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Coffee Not Ethically Sourced And Contains Industrial Solvents—Case Filed January 2026 After Years Of Similar Claims concerns what Starbucks allegedly told consumers.
• Starbucks VOC Lawsuit Starbucks Decaf Coffee, What the VOC and Benzene Claims Mean for You is a separate consumer lawsuit.
• Starbucks Lawsuit 2026, Is There A Claim Form You Can File? explains the difference between a pending lawsuit and an approved settlement.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Starbucks Forced Labor Putative Class Action

Who is suing Starbucks in the Brazil coffee forced labor case?

Eight Brazilian workers, one of them a minor represented by his mother, proceeding under pseudonyms. Their lawyer is Terrence Collingsworth of International Rights Advocates.

What does the lawsuit say Starbucks did?

It alleges Starbucks knowingly benefited from forced labor on Brazilian coffee farms that were members of the Cooxupé cooperative, a major supplier. Starbucks Corporation is the only defendant named.

Why was the first Starbucks forced labor lawsuit dismissed?

A D.C. federal judge ruled the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Starbucks there. She did not decide whether the allegations are true.

Has Starbucks been found liable for forced labor?

No. The claims are allegations in a putative class action, and no class has been certified.

Why does Starbucks want the case dismissed?

As summarized by Law360, Starbucks argues the workers have not shown the plantations that employed them supplied Starbucks’s coffee. The full motion was not available to me.

Can I join the Starbucks forced labor class action?

There is no settlement and no class notice. The proposed class is made up of coffee workers in Brazil, not Starbucks customers, so U.S. consumers would not typically be part of it. This is not a consumer refund program, and customers should not give personal information to unofficial sites promising a payout.

Does the lawsuit prove Starbucks coffee is made with forced labor?

No. It alleges exploitation on farms linked to a supplier. It does not establish that any other farm or product is involved.

What happens next?

The court will rule on the motion after the workers respond. It could dismiss all or some claims or let the case go forward.

Official Sources and Legal References

1. Memorandum Opinion, Doe I v. Starbucks Corporation, No. 25-cv-1261 (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2026): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-01261/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-01261-0.pdf
2. Docket, Doe I et al. v. Starbucks Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-02126 (W.D. Wash.): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:2026cv02126/364610
3. Law360, “Starbucks Seeks To Exit Supply Chain Forced Labor Suit” (Oct. 22, 2026), headline and summary only: https://www.law360.com/employment-authority/articles/2541321/starbucks-seeks-to-exit-supply-chain-forced-labor-suit
4. International Rights Advocates, case page: https://www.internationalrightsadvocates.org/cases/coffee
5. Associated Press, “Labor group sues Starbucks, saying it ignores slave-like conditions for workers in Brazil” (April 24, 2025): https://www.wsls.com/business/2025/04/24/labor-group-sues-starbucks-saying-it-ignores-slave-like-conditions-for-workers-in-brazil/
6. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, report on the June 2026 refiling: https://www.bhrrc.org/ko/최신-뉴스/usa-8-brazilian-works-refile-lawsuit-against-starbucks-for-alleged-forced-labour-by-companys-supplier-in-washington-state/
7. 18 U.S.C. § 1595: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1595
8. 18 U.S.C. § 1589: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1589
9. Hagens Berman press release on the January 2026 consumer class action: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260113310153/en/Hagens-Berman-Lawsuit-Accuses-Starbucks-of-Misrepresentations-About-Human-Rights-and-Chemicals-in-its-Coffee

General information, not legal advice. The allegations are unproven, no class has been certified, and Starbucks has not been found liable. Check the docket for current status.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the February 17, 2026 memorandum opinion in Doe I v. Starbucks Corporation (D.D.C. No. 25-cv-1261), the docket for Doe I v. Starbucks Corporation (W.D. Wash. No. 2:26-cv-02126) and Law360’s report on Starbucks’s motion, as of October 23, 2026. Last Updated: October 23, 2026.