News

Before everyone gets down on non-dairy milk drinkers, remember that the government subsidizes the hell out of dairy milk production to make it cheaper in the first place.

The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that lactose intolerance is a disability listed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the surcharges violate that act.

Is it though? I mean don't get me wrong, it sucks that people who are lactose intolerant have to pay more, but is it really a disability?

The reasonable accommodation is offering non-dairy options at all even if it's slightly more.

I'm severely lactose intolerant, so you know what I do? I DON'T FUCKING DRINK LATTES. A restaurant is under no obligation to give me a non-dairy substitute at no cost. If you want what a restaurant sells, buy it. If you don't like what they sell or think it's too expensive, fucking don't and get on with your life.

Going by some arguments in this thread, to ask a restaurant to be considerate for a section of the population is considered entitled but being a cheapskate and selfish money guzzler is a god given right and should be something to be proud of. Like, it doesn't even cost the restaurant $1-$2 extra per serving. Of course, when it comes to money.. fuck being considerate right?

I accuse them of over-roasting their coffee beans.

I hate to say anything in defense of Starbucks (as a small Coffee House owner), but non-dairy costs more in general. It's not like they are upcharging because they want to stick it to the lactose intolerant.

I despise Starbucks, but I'm not sure this lawsuit makes any sense. Those non-cow milks costs them more. Of course, the law often doesn't make sense, anyway.

As another commenter said, they could just overcharge for cow milk and make the prices all the same. Then nobody is happy, but it meets the legal requirement (as I understand it).

What about the extra charge for gluten free buns? Or vegan chese? Or impossible burgers? If I can't ride my bike up big hills can i get an e-bike for the same price? If I'm very tall can i get an airplane seat upgrade for free?

Im sorry but as someone who works in the field of disability this makes me irate. We have whole states who are not in compliance with the ADA when it comes to employment and even accessible enternces to state and federal buildings and yet the federal government is powerless to stop them, but we can use the ADA to sue coffee shops? Sure it's a good thing I guess but the larger and more important provisions of that legislation continue to be overlooked and unimplemented despite lawsuits filed against states only seeking conscent decrees, but we can make a big scene of suing for non diary creamers.

I'm sorry but lactose intolerance is not a disability.

I've been getting Lactaid ads alllllll over the Internet since reading that article.

Guess there is a new advertiser site that needs blocking ..

ITT: A lot of people wanting to argue the headline and not the articles or legislation.

The plaintiffs said they would order drinks that included milk and would substitute the milk for non-dairy alternatives, such as soy, oat, coconut, or almond milk, and were charged an extra $0.50 to $0.80 for the substitution.

The lawsuit notes that Starbucks typically uses 2% milk for their milk-based products and would substitute that milk for another type of milk, such as 1% or skim, for no additional cost. Starbucks will also offer caffeine-less or sugar-free options for no additional cost.

Customers who are lactose-intolerant or have milk allergies may pay up to $2 extra at Dunkin’ Donuts when substituting oat or almond milk for dairy in their beverages. (from the link in the article)

The lawsuit against Dunkin’ points out that the chain already modifies its regular beverage offerings to remove caffeine and sugar at no additional cost for those with diabetes, weight-control issues or hypertension. The coffee company also asks customers about their allergies, informing them that their products may contain allergens. “Once Dunkin’ asks about allergies, and someone with a disability requests a dairy-free product as an accommodation, they can’t impose a surcharge — as they don’t for caffeine-free drinks, etc.,” Kanter said.

Kanter, the founding director of Syracuse University’s disability law and policy program, believes the lawsuit makes a strong case for discrimination under the ADA. “If a person qualifies as a person with a disability, and they’re entitled to an accommodation or modification — which in this case looks pretty simple as nondairy milk — they cannot be charged extra,” said Kanter.

The legislation is simple, and being tested currently in the courts with how it effects business practices. It's also telling how privileged most of you are on here, you imagine yourself as the "owner" who is shocked and dumbfounded by this turn of events. Anyone who has actually worked in the restaurant or service industry knows this is company bullshit.

The Alternative-Milk items are mere percentages of percentages. All Food Costs and future sale projections are calculated for proper ordering. They already have the items on hand....there would be no restructuring or change in conducting business under a judgement on this case. The use of other free alternatives (sugar-free,etc) for disabilities being used as advertising is a damning indication everyone skips over. Caffeine-free doesn't cost more to have or stock? Any of the Splenda/etc is corporeal and drops out of the Ether for everyone?

Again, the numbers are so low for alternative-milk your brain would skip a beat if you look at their figures.

Starbucks pays to produce one cup of regular coffee. Amateur speculative estimates range from $0.20 to $0.75.... Starbucks has recently been repurchasing its own shares and paying dividends to increase returns to investors....The costs of goods sold, depreciation and amortization expenses, and store operating expenses have declined over the last six years, with only general and administrative expenses rising. (link)

Starbucks isn't saying shit, they know the reality of how bad it actually looks. There is no "Woe is me" in any of their financial reportings so they just have to bite the bullet.

Starbucks also expects to continue robust store development in China, with net unit growth of approximately 13% annually. Globally, Starbucks expects to approach 45,000 stores by the end of 2025... Starbucks now expects global revenue growth in the range of 10% to 12% annually from fiscal 2023.... growth is expected to be in the range of 15% to 20% annually through fiscal 2025. Starbucks plans to resume its share buyback program reinstituting a healthy return of shareholder capital, yielding an annual EPS benefit of approximately 1%, net of incremental interest, beginning in fiscal year 2024. Between dividends and share buybacks, the company expects to return approximately $20 billion to its shareholders in the next three years. (link)

They're playing ball in China, we've all seen enough examples of companies having to bend the knee or getting out. I don't get why everyone is not happy about these events. Want a "free" market where large corporation monopolies exist? Sure, but you gotta at least allow some crumbs to fall for the peasants lest they get hangy again. Want freedom and inclusion for all groups of people to experience life? Starbucks is an American institution now by cultural standards, you can't academically refute that looking at any media or even economical standpoints. It's on every corner, reasonable accommodations should be made and enforced for the general public. This isn't a Ma and Pa coffee shop, this is why lower court judges exist and can weigh in on individual cases where they can seriously consider the context of the business standards.

obligatory:

Stop giving these greedy corporations money. There's other alternatives for your coffee fix.

I don't think that this will mean that all non-dairy creamers would have to be given for free.

It would only mean that one non-dairy creamer would be. Oat, almond, soy milk are probably the more expensive types of non-dairy creamers.

Can’t believe so many people here are arguing in Starbucks favour here.

Sad state of affairs that people go out to defend them for such a simple easy thing to change.

Could someone with lactose intolerance not merely omit the milk?