Last Tuesday, three California consumers filed a lawsuit against Starbucks for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by charging extra on non-dairy products.
The three California consumers by the names of Dawn Miller, Maria Bollinger, and Shunda Smith are all lactose intolerant and said that it is a medical necessity for them to avoid milk products at all costs since people who are lactose intolerant can not consume lactose, the sugar that is found in milk and milk products. They have alleged that Starbucks has actively discriminated against lactose-intolerant consumers by charging an extra fee for non-dairy substitutes.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that when they would order drinks that contained milk and would substitute this milk for non-dairy alternatives such as coconut, oat, soy, or almond milk, Starbucks charged them an additional 5o to 80 cents for their non-dairy substitutions. The plaintiffs have accused Starbucks of creating these surcharges specifically to make extra money off of individuals with lactose intolerance or milk allergies.
Lactose intolerance is classified as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, prompting the plaintiffs to claim that Starbucks’ surcharge on non-dairy substitutions violates this act. In addition, the plaintiffs have claimed that based on the ADA and California Unruh Civil Rights Act, a law which forbids businesses from discriminating against consumers based on disability, among other things. Starbucks does not have the right to add an extra fee on non-dairy substitutes.
Though Starbucks has yet to speak out on pending litigation, a spokesperson for Starbucks has come out stating that US consumers are given non-dairy options at no additional fee. In a statement to Quartz, the spokesperson stated that Starbucks locations in the US allow customers to “add up to four ounces of nondairy milk to hot or iced brewed coffee or tea, cold brew, and Americano beverages” at no additional cost.
Sofia Alvarado, a junior at Eleanor Roosevelt High School, does not find the plaintiffs’ claims justified.
“[Starbucks] is not [being] unfair because it is more expensive to produce non-lactose milk and they’re just making a profit,” Alvarado said. “Lactose intolerance isn’t one of the major disabilities to the point [where] changes in milk would be life-changing. It’s also not unfair because it feels they just want to say it’s a disability because they want the benefit of cheaper milk, not because they are genuinely affected by it.”
Contrastingly, ERHS junior, Angelique Hermosisima, chooses to side with the plaintiffs in this case.
“I believe that the customers’ feelings are justified due to the fact one: there is a law for it and [that] law stands for a moral reason,” Hermosisima said. “People should not be charged extra for the way their body works. People with disabilities already generally navigate through life with a disadvantage compared to those who do not. For that reason, certain things that may aid them with their disability may be costly. To put it simply, I believe Starbucks just wants more money.”
