Starbucks Lawsuit: Decaf Chemicals, FDA Limits, Ethical Sourcing

A proposed class action filed in January 2026 accuses Starbucks of misleading consumers on two fronts at once, and the Starbucks decaf and ethical sourcing lawsuit is now the central case to watch on both issues. The complaint alleges that Starbucks markets its coffee as “100% ethically sourced” despite documented labor abuses at certified supplier farms, and that its decaffeinated coffee contains undisclosed traces of industrial chemicals, including benzene, toluene, and methylene chloride. The case, Williams v. Starbucks Corporation, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.¹

What the Plaintiffs Are Actually Claiming

The complaint was filed on January 13, 2026, by Jennifer Williams of Ferndale, Washington, and David Strauss of Irvington, New York, represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Richman Law & Policy.² The case number is 2:26-cv-00112, assigned to Judge Kymberly K. Evanson.³

One point matters up front. The plaintiffs are not alleging that Starbucks violated federal food-safety rules or that the chemical residues exceed FDA limits. Their theory is narrower: that Starbucks engaged in “deceptive omissions” about how its coffee is processed and sourced, causing consumers to pay a premium they would not have otherwise paid.⁴ The complaint seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief under Washington and New York consumer protection statutes and common law fraud.²

The Chemicals Detected in Decaf

The chemical claims rest on independent testing reportedly conducted in January 2025 on Starbucks’ Decaf House Blend medium roast.⁵ Three volatile organic compounds were identified:

Methylene chloride at 22 parts per billion. The complaint states the EPA deems this chemical unsafe for consumption at any level.
Benzene at 28 parts per billion, which the complaint says is 23 parts per billion above the EPA’s safety standard.
Toluene at 87 parts per billion. The complaint describes toluene as “not authorized for use as a food ingredient or processing aid” and more commonly associated with industrial solvents than food.⁶

The plaintiffs argue a consumer buying a bag labeled “100% Arabica coffee” would not expect trace industrial chemicals in the product. The complaint calls the findings “avoidable chemical contamination introduced during processing.”⁵

Why the Chemicals Are There

Starbucks uses what is known as the Direct Contact Method for most of its decaf products, including standard blends. Methylene chloride is applied to green, unroasted beans to draw out caffeine. Starbucks has maintained that processing chemicals evaporate during roasting and that no methylene chloride remains in the final product. A small number of Starbucks decaf offerings, including the Komodo Dragon Blend and VIA Instant Decaf Italian Roast, use the chemical-free Swiss Water Process instead.⁷

U.S. manufacturers are not required to disclose the decaffeination method on a product label.⁸ That labeling gap is part of the plaintiffs’ argument. Without disclosure, a consumer has no way to know which method was used on the bag in their hand.

How the Detected Levels Compare to FDA Limits

This is where the reader needs a boundary. The FDA currently permits methylene chloride residue in roasted decaf coffee up to 10 parts per million, a threshold far above the 22 parts per billion the lawsuit alleges was detected.⁸ The Clean Label Project, which has tested popular decaf brands, has found all samples below that FDA limit.⁹ The National Coffee Association has cited such data in opposing stricter rules, noting industry-tested levels 10 to more than 99.5 percent below the FDA limit.¹⁰

The Environmental Defense Fund and other groups petitioned the FDA in late 2023 to ban methylene chloride in food entirely, arguing no level of a known carcinogen is safe. The FDA has not issued a final decision. On May 28, 2026, it reopened the public comment period to collect updated data, with comments due by June 29, 2026.¹¹ The EPA has banned most commercial uses of methylene chloride over cancer concerns, but that rule does not cover food, which sits under FDA jurisdiction.⁸

The Ethical Sourcing Side

The second half of the complaint targets Starbucks’ consumer-facing claim of being “Committed to 100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing,” backed by the company’s internal Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices program. The plaintiffs allege farms certified under this program have been linked to labor and human rights abuses in Brazil, Guatemala, China, and Mexico, including wage theft, child labor, and forced labor.¹

The complaint singles out a 2022 labor complaint in Brazil involving Cooxupé, described as one of Starbucks’ largest suppliers. The lawsuit alleges workers at C.A.F.E.-certified operations were forced to work in dangerous conditions without protective gear, subjected to poor living conditions, and that local labor laws were violated. The plaintiffs contend Starbucks continued to certify these farms while aware of the abuses, and that it did not disclose its remediation efforts to consumers.⁶

C.A.F.E. Practices has been active since 2004 and covers more than 400,000 farmers in over 30 countries. The program is verified by third-party organizations approved and overseen by SCS Global Services, which conducts office, shadow, check, and desk audits of the verifiers on an ongoing basis. Suppliers who commit “zero tolerance” violations such as child labor can have their commercial relationships suspended pending investigation.¹²

What Starbucks Says

Starbucks has pushed back. In an emailed statement to the Seattle Times, company spokesperson Leandro Cavinato Herrera said: “We take the allegations raised in the Williams and Strauss lawsuit seriously, but we firmly believe they are inaccurate and misrepresent both our sourcing practices and the integrity of our Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices program.”⁵

On sourcing, Starbucks has said it maintains supply chain visibility, conducts regular farm audits, and takes action, including ending supplier relationships, when violations are reported. On the chemical claims, the company said its products “meet or exceed applicable safety standards.”⁵

Where the Case Stands

As of mid-2026, the case is early. The parties agreed to a briefing schedule for Starbucks’ anticipated motion to dismiss, set to be considered by the court on May 15, 2026.¹³ On March 4, 2026, the court granted a stipulated motion to stay initial scheduling dates pending that ruling.³

No settlement has been reached, and no claim form exists for consumers at this stage. Because this is a proposed class action, eligible class members do not need to take any action to “join” while the litigation is ongoing. If a settlement is eventually reached, affected consumers would typically be notified by mail or email with instructions on how to file a claim.¹⁴ Hagens Berman is inviting consumers who purchased Starbucks coffee products to submit their contact information through an online intake form to assist with the investigation.⁶

Parallel Cases Worth Knowing About

The Williams filing did not appear in isolation. In January 2024, the National Consumers League filed a separate suit in D.C. Superior Court alleging that Starbucks deceptively markets its coffee and tea as “100% ethical” while sourcing from farms linked to child labor, forced labor, and sexual abuse. That complaint cited incidents in Brazil, Kenya, and Guatemala, including children under 13 working 40 to 50 hours a week on certified farms and BBC-documented sexual abuse at a tea supplier in Kenya.¹⁵ Starbucks tried to move the case to federal court, but in January 2025 a federal judge sent it back to D.C. Superior Court.¹⁶ On August 11, 2025, a D.C. Superior Court judge denied Starbucks’ motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed.¹⁷

On March 9, 2026, a parallel class action was filed in the Superior Court of Quebec in Montreal by plaintiff Alexandra Gauthier against Starbucks Coffee Canada, Inc. and Starbucks Corporation. The Canadian filing expressly references the U.S. Williams litigation and describes its claims as “substantially similar,” covering both the ethical sourcing marketing and the undisclosed VOCs in decaf.¹⁸ As of May 2026, Starbucks had filed an answer to the summons and the parties were preparing to work out case management procedures with the court. No authorization hearing date had been set.¹⁹

1
KIRO 7. Starbucks Sued Over 100% Ethical Sourcing Claims, Undisclosed Chemicals in Decaf Coffee
2
Top Class Actions. Starbucks Class Action Alleges Coffee Not Ethically Sourced and Contains Industrial Solvents
3
Justia. Williams et al v. Starbucks Corporation, Dkt. 20
4
Daily Coffee News. Lawsuit Accuses Starbucks of Misleading Buyers on Sustainability and Chemical Content
5
The Seattle Times. Starbucks Sued Over Alleged Chemicals in Decaf Coffee, Farm Violations
6
Hagens Berman. Starbucks Consumer Class Action
7
Tasting Table. How Starbucks Decaf Coffee Is Made
8
American Chemical Society. Is Decaffeinated Coffee Safe to Drink?
9
Food Navigator USA. Activists Petition to Remove Methylene Chloride From European Coffee Bean Processing Amid Carcinogen Concerns
10
National Coffee Association. Reject Decaf Ban
11
Federal Register. Food Additive Petition From Environmental Defense Fund et al.
12
Starbucks. C.A.F.E. Practices: Starbucks’ Approach to Ethically Sourcing Coffee
13
Justia. Williams et al v. Starbucks Corporation, Dkt. 9
14
ClassAction.org. How to Join a Class Action Lawsuit
15
National Consumers League. National Consumers League Sues Starbucks
16
National Consumers League. National Consumers League’s Lawsuit Against Starbucks Moves Forward in D.C. Superior Court
17
National Consumers League. Statement From Sally Greenberg, CEO of the National Consumers League
18
Registre des Actions Collectives du Québec. Application to Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action, Case No. 500-06-000010-260
19
Registre des Actions Collectives du Québec. Answer to Summons, Case No. 500-06-000010-260