The cost of drinking a milk-based Starbucks Frappuccino goes beyond the $5-plus price tag for California residents Maria Bolliger, Dawn Miller and Shunda Smith.
All three are lactose intolerant or have a milk allergy. They say that ingesting any dairy product can cause problems such as stomach pain, inflammation of the digestive tract, intestinal irregularities and even vomiting.
What angers the trio, however, is not their limitations, but the remedy Starbucks offers.
Bolliger, Miller and Smith are suing the coffee giant as part of a $5 million class-action lawsuit, alleging that Starbucks is discriminating against them and other lactose-intolerant customers by charging more for non-dairy milks. The complaint was filed earlier this month in U.S. District Court in Fresno.
“These are people 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. “This lawsuit is about discrimination.”
Adam Cyr, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, said in an emailed statement that the ADA requires businesses to make reasonable modifications to their policies or ordinary practices to accommodate people with disabilities.
A food allergy “can be a disability if it substantially limits a major life activity, such as eating, or an important bodily function, such as digestive function,” Cyr said.
The plaintiffs are frequent Starbucks customers, according to Gibson. In the lawsuit, they allege they have paid surcharges of 50 to 80 cents per drink since 2018 to switch from 2% milk to lactose-free alternatives such as soy, oat, coconut or almond milk.
“Starbucks created a separate, higher-priced menu aimed at customers who cannot drink milk,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit maintains that there is no valid reason to charge more for plant milks since their cost is comparable.
Whole milk costs 3 to 5 cents per fluid ounce, while half milk costs 9 to 19 cents and heavy cream costs 17 to 32 cents per ounce, depending on demand.
The complaint listed retail prices for oat and soy milk at 6 to 7 cents per fluid ounce, and almond milk at 4 to 7 cents, for comparison.
“This is an option for Starbucks to offer oat milk and almond milk,” Gibson said. “For these people, it is not an option since they cannot drink normal milk. Charging a surcharge is discrimination against them.”
A Starbucks spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit, but said customers could add up to 4 ounces of non-dairy milk to hot or iced coffee or tea, cold brew or American beverages at no charge. They also said Starbucks Rewards members can redeem points to substitute milk for non-dairy alternatives in dairy-based beverages.
Charging for non-dairy alternatives, the spokesperson said, is similar to charging for “other beverage customizations, such as a shot of espresso or additional syrup.”
Gibson also represented plaintiffs in a $5 million class action lawsuit against Starbucks in Florida in 2022 that also focused on the company's charges for lactose-free alternatives. He would not say whether a settlement had been reached in that case.
That lawsuit applied only to Florida residents, while the lawsuit filed in Fresno has nationwide implications.
The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America did not comment on the lawsuit, but emphasized that food allergies and restrictive diets can place an additional financial burden on people with certain conditions.
Melanie Carver, the foundation's chief mission officer, said it was also important for people with milk allergies to carefully examine foods and know the signs of a possible allergic reaction.
He cautioned that some products that say “non-dairy” on the label “are not necessarily free of cow's milk or cow's milk proteins.”
Common signs and symptoms of an allergic reaction to milk, he said, include rash, hives, itching, swelling, vomiting, diarrhea and difficulty breathing.
