Starbucks is sued for $5million for charging extra for nondairy milks as lactose intolerant customers claim coffee giant violates ADA

Starbucks is being sued for $5million because the coffee chain charges extra for nondairy milks and violating the ADA, lactose intolerant customers claim. 

California residents Maria Bolliger, Dawn Miller and Shunda Smith all have lactose intolerance or an allergy to milk, which is making the price of their coffee soar, they claim. Now, they are fighting back by filing a federal lawsuit against the coffee giant. 

The three women argue Starbucks is discriminating against them and other lactose-intolerant customers by charging extra for lactose-free milks. 

At Starbucks, a nondairy milk costs an additional 70 cents.  In certain areas, such as New York City, nondairy milks such as oat, almond, soy and coconut cost an extra 90 cents.

The lawsuit also claims that there is no valid reason for the surge in charges for nondairy milks, as the cost of milks is comparable. 

Starbucks is being sued in a class action lawsuit for $5million because they charge extra for nondairy milks. Pictured: A TikTok video laments the extra charge for nondairymilk

At Starbucks, a nondairy milk costs an additional 70 cents. In certain areas, such as New York City, nondairy milks such as oat, almond, soy and coconut cost an extra 90 cents

'It's about the fact that these are individuals with lactose intolerance, which is recognized as a disability by the [Americans with Disability Act],' said Keith Gibson, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, to the Los Angeles Times. 'This lawsuit is about discrimination.' 

Lactose intolerance can cause severe stomach pain, digestive tract inflammation, bowel irregularities and even vomiting. The condition qualified as a disability starting in 2008.

'Starbucks created a separate, higher-priced menu, aimed at customers who cannot ingest milk,' the lawsuit claims. 

Other dietary requirements can be modified for free at the coffee chain, including sugar-free sweeteners for people with diabetes as well as caffeine-free options and other types of dairy milks, including 2 percent, whole, half-and-half and fat-free skim milk. 

The lawsuit also notes no real difference in price of the milks. At the time of the filing, Whole Milk was priced at between $0.03-0.05 per fluid ounce, Half & Half between $0.09-0.19 per fluid ounce, and Heavy Cream between $0.17-0.32 per fluid ounce. 

California residents Maria Bolliger, Dawn Miller and Shunda Smith all have lactose intolerance or an allergy to milk, which is making the price of their coffee soar

Lactose intolerance qualified as a disability under the ADA in 2008. 'Starbucks created a separate, higher-priced menu, aimed at customers who cannot ingest milk,' the lawsuit claims

Yet, coconut, oat and soy milk only sells for between $0.06-0.07 per fluid ounce. Similarly, almond milk sells for between $0.04-0.07 per fluid ounce.

The lawsuit further claims that the surge charge is disproportionate to the retail cost of nondairy milks. 'In 2023, the average price of a Starbucks crafted coffee drink was $3.25, therefore the Surcharge could be up to 40% of the average drink price.' 

Starbucks has earned over $1 billion dollars in the United States as a result of charging extra for nondairy milks, according to the lawsuit.

'Upon information and belief, Starbucks has earned over $1 billion dollars in the United States as a result of its discriminatory and illegal levying of the Surcharge during the class period.'

DailyMail.com has reached out to Starbucks for comment about the lawsuit. 

'We cannot comment on pending litigation,' a spokesperson for Starbucks said.

They added, 'In U.S. Starbucks stores, at no additional cost, customers can add up to four ounces of non-dairy milk to Hot or Iced Brewed Coffee or Tea, Cold Brew and Americano beverages.'

'Starbucks Rewards members can also redeem 25 Stars to substitute non-dairy milk in any beverage where it is not part of the standard recipe.'

Dunkin Donuts faced a similar lawsuit in early 2024, in which customers noted that ordered plant-based or lactose-free milk was costing them an extra 50 cents to $2.15 per drink compared to those ordering cow's milk. 

Arlene Kanter, head of the disability law and policy program at Syracuse University, says the plaintiffs have a strong case because lactose intolerance meets the definition of disability. 

The Nashville protest shut down an entire street at West End Avenue, drawing over a dozen police cars on August 18

Starbucks has also faced backlash for charging extra for nondairy milks in the past. In 2022, vegan protestors went as far as to seal themselves in cement outside the coffee shop in protest against 50 cent charge for nondairy milk that 'discriminates against people who are concerned for cows.'

PETA said it wouldn't back down from its position, and told Starbucks to stop castigating people who are 'concerned for cows.'

The protest followed a letter from Sir Paul McCartney, where he urged Starbucks to ‘stop charging for plant-based milk.’

Starbucks was recently sued for claiming that their coffee is 100 percent ethical - despite being supplied by farms with human rights violations in multiple continents.

A lawsuit was filed earlier this year in Washington, D.C., federal court on behalf of American consumers against the largest coffee company in the world over their 'misleading' marketing.

The lawsuit claims Starbucks knowingly sources tea and coffee from suppliers with 'documented, severe human rights and labor abuses' while claiming in their marketing and on their packaging to be 100 percent ethical.

Kenya, Guatemala, and Brazil are some of the countries where Starbucks sources its products.

Guatemala is Central America's second-largest coffee exporter - after Honduras - and their arabica beans are favored by the American coffee giant.

Starbucks has denied  the allegations.