Can’t access the site, but isn’t non-dairy milk often more expensive?
To produce? No
As sold? Yes
Dairy is ludicrously subsidized, and as such cheaper than it really should be.
And that changes what?
I don’t think that it is. At least the soy milk I sometimes drink is cheaper than the organic cows milk my wife drinks. Oat probably is more expensive.
Reminds of how back in the day, few places had veg options but would often have a bean version that was cheaper than the meat version cool. Now? Restaurants will have less bean options but have an Impossible meat option that’s more expensive than meat 🙄
Prediction: Starbucks resolves the issue by raising all “milk” product prices to match the most expensive option.
This person capitalisms
Eww! No I don’t! Take it back!
deleted by creator
And then they blame it on the lawsuit.
Because of government subsidies, yes.
Nope, capitalism
State capitalism.
Ooh ooh I know the answer to this one. Just make normal dairy drinkers pay 2 dollars extra that way no one is being discriminated against and the corporate coffers are set to be overflowing.
Whether or not lactose intolerance is a disability or not push back on this is pushback on all special orders getting a premium price across the board. No one with a disability should have to pay extra for standard access.
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.
They already offer a dairy free option: black coffee. I’m not sure that would solve the problem.
Brewed coffee and espresso are not the same beverage and cannot be substituted for one another.
Most of Starbucks drinks are primarily milk with 2-3 espresso shots. By weight, they sell milk with coffee flavor.
I used to drink brewed coffee, now I effectively drink Americanos (at home I use a areopress). And anyone who stays at my place, that’s what they’re getting, and I’ve never had a complaint. In fact it’s usually compliments. So I’m not sure I agree.
However, I think I wasn’t clear about my point. I’m just saying they already provide a non dairy alternative so providing a single one for free either doesn’t meet the desires of this lawsuit, or the lawsuit will fail because it already exists.
I absolutely agree that Starbucks is mostly milk. So maybe you’re right and that will make the difference.
lol wut
If dairy restrictions are a disability, then me being left handed is also a disability.
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.
I’m thinking more about the implications of this legal argument. Does it mean vegetarians should be guaranteed prices equivalent to meat dishes? Is it religious discrimination if a restaurant doesn’t offer fish during Lent?
I’d rather just have Starbucks lower their prices. The actual legal case opens a can of worms we really don’t want to deal with.
If this leads to more veg options at better prices, sounds like a win to me.
Honestly just make all food cheaper, it’s become way too expensive.
Why do you think a business should be compelled to sell something at any given price? I mean sure, you can burn them in the court of public opinion, but it’s another thing when you say that government regulation should dictate the cost of a coffee beverage. I think that’s where most people are landing in this, they agree it’s stupid for Starbucks to do such a petty thing, but when it comes to lawsuits involving ADA regulations it crosses a line for reasonable response.
It’s almost like the lawsuit for hot coffee where the person argued they didn’t know the coffee was hot
You mean the incident where McDonald made the coffee so hot it was beyond safe and the woman had 3rd degree burns fusing her pelvic region together?
That case is one of the most well known examples of how corporations turn serious safety incidents into “haha stupid customer not know obvious thing”, as if the victim was to blame for McDonalds wrong doing.
You chose that incident to argue your point? Wow, thank you, that makes my case here so much easier.
I still don’t understand how the “hot coffee” debunking isn’t known world round by this point.
You can get third degree burns from touching water which is 150 degree F for around 2 seconds. Most coffee world wide is served between 160 and 180 F.
In that case the water was supposedly served at 190 F while competitors coffees were served at 160 F. The lawyers in that suit claimed that if the coffee had been in the 160 range it would have taken up to 20 seconds to get third degree burns. We now know that even at 160 F she would have gotten the same burns within 5 seconds.
What exactly is your point?
Coffee should not be served at 160f. That’s undrinkably hot and just burns the coffee.
McDonalds only does this maliciously so you won’t ask for a free refill.
Yeah the moment they mentioned that like McDonald’s wasn’t at fault I stopped reading anything else they had to say.
Because the ingredients cost maybe less than a cent more and they change nearly a dollar for it.
“But they can charge whatever they like!”
No. They cannot. They cannot charge for tap water. They cannot charge for using the bathroom. They can’t lock you in the Cafe and charge you to leave. They can’t advertise for one price and sell another. They can’t charge half price for milk that’s gone rotten etc. There are lots of things they can’t do. This is another.
Because the ingredients cost maybe less than a cent more and they change nearly a dollar for it.
Can you show your work on milk alternatives costing Starbucks less than a cent more?
No. They cannot. They cannot charge for tap water. They cannot charge for using the bathroom. They can’t lock you in the Cafe and charge you to leave. They can’t advertise for one price and sell another. They can’t charge half price for milk that’s gone rotten etc. There are lots of things they can’t do. This is another.
Quite the specious analogy, but I fail to see how kidnapping is equivalent to charging a different price for a different product.
We will never know the exact numbers. However, from reported figures we know that $SBUX, $DNKN, $PNRA, $MCD all have similar margins across gross, ops and P&L (50-70, 10-20, 10-20 respectively).
the goal of all fast food centers is to produce a unit cost as close to $1, preferably lower, as possible and we also know from reported figures that 1 cent is the expected associated labor cost of a starbucks unit.
Knowing that the price of milk on commodities market is 16.42hwt or 1 cent / oz, knowing that SBUX coffee beans are 7cent/oz we can extrapolate that suitable extra costs for alternative milks must be in the single figure cent range.
Further supported by how if you are to go to a post-supply-chain-shipping-and-procurement wholesale vendor then the price of oatly barista edition oatmilk is 10c/oz and we can very safely assume that SBUX gets it much MUCH cheaper so we at least know the ceiling is $0.1
So, while I was exaggerating for effect in my original reply, the actual numbers- even if they are paying the same price as I would walking into a wholesaler (EXTREMELY unlikely):
- price of 16oz cow milk latte: $4.25, unit cost $1, milk cost 1c
- price of 16oz oat milk latte $4.95, cost $1.1, milk 10c
So in the extreme worst case scenario for starbucks they are making an extra 6% profit per ounce on oatmilk over cow milk, so not at cost-to-price parity.
And that’s the worst case, they are probably making more.
So in one comment you’ve gone from less than a cent to possibly 10 cents. And the price increase isn’t a dollar, it’s 70 cents.
Your calculations don’t seem to include increased refrigerated space required, additional man hours, increased inefficiencies, and possible increased spoilage. The price increase does not strike me as unreasonable given the circumstances.
cf supra—
exhibit a:
“So while I was exaggerating for effect in my original post”
exhibit b:
“extreme worst case scenario”
exhibit c:
“almost a dollar”
waaaay ahead of the gotchas and objections my dude.
Additional space isn’t an overhead rolling operating cost, and per unit is probably infestisimal. Additional man hours is a weird objection, do starbucks even track for “reaching for a carton slightly further away”? I imagine the time savings for moving a carton 4" closer are measured in the thousandths of seconds
oat milk has a longer shelf life (6 months) than cow milk (5 days) and when opened too (10 days vs 2)
The price doesn’t have to strike you as reasonable or not because we are discussing whether we think starbucks are making a profit on oat milk or not. To me it’s obvious they are making more of a margin on oat over dairy, whether or not that is good/bad, reasonable/unreasonable, fair/unfair is an entirely different conversation
Additional space isn’t an overhead rolling operating cost, and per unit is probably infestisimal. Additional man hours is a weird objection, do starbucks even track for “reaching for a carton slightly further away”? I imagine the time savings for moving a carton 4" closer are measured in the thousandths of seconds
Either they added a new refrigerator or made room in an existing refrigerator. To make room something needs to be removed, less room for regular milk means more trips to a walk-in to restock. More SKUs means more time on ordering and inventory. If they added a refrigerator then there’s added electricity costs.
oat milk has a longer shelf life (6 months)
I meant once opened, which is more like a week. Which means they likely all need day dots put on them. More man hours (or minutes, or seconds)
The price doesn’t have to strike you as reasonable or not because we are discussing whether we think starbucks are making a profit on oat milk or not.
They’re a business, I assume they make a profit on everything. Oat milk lattes would seem to be a strange loss leader.
Open a grocery app. Search for oat milk, dairy milk, almond milk, soy milk. Alternative milks don’t really cost more than dairy anymore.
I don’t agree with the lawsuit, but I also don’t agree with Starbucks’ ridiculous upcharge for non dairy.
Open a grocery app. Search for oat milk, dairy milk, almond milk, soy milk. Alternative milks don’t really cost more than dairy anymore.
Does Starbucks shop at grocery stores? They likely buy non-consumer packaged milk, think 5 gallon plastic sacks, and cases of consumer packaged milk alternatives. Not to mention extra man-hours and extra refrigerated space.
Visit a Starbucks. They pull a gallon plastic milk jug from a drinks fridge under the bar when making drinks.
While there might be slight discrepancies between grocery prices and wholesale prices, the sheer size of Starbucks means they’d save on all varieties of milk (not just dairy) and I seriously doubt they pay 50 cents more per cup for alternative milks.
the sheer size of Starbucks means they’d save on all varieties of milk (not just dairy) and I seriously doubt they pay 50 cents more per cup for alternative milks.
You literally have no idea though, unless you work in supply chain for Starbucks. You’re guessing. Do they do their purchasing as a single corporation from one dairy farm, I doubt it. Plus you ignore the additional hours and need for refrigerated space. There’s more to consider than just cost per unit. Also if you use less there’s a greater chance of spoilage.
Fused labia. Any time you think about whether the coffee was indeed too hot, I want you to think of the words fused labia.
Also think about the fact that they’d been warned about the coffee being unsafe multiple times prior. Also think about the fact that she initially wanted them to only pay for the reconstructive surgery after their coffee fused her labia, and they said no.
This is known as a red herring fallacy, the fact that it fused her labia doesn’t change the nature of the situation, nor does it increase the gravity of the situation.
“She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.”
Additionanally:
“According to a 2007 report, McDonald’s had not reduced the temperature of its coffee, serving it at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future injury and liability (though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee). However, in 2013 the New York Times reported that it had lowered its service temperature to 170–180 °F (77–82 °C). The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).”
So not only did it not change the temperature at which most major brands serve coffee, the temperature that was proposed as reasonable by the defense attorneys was also still hot enough to cause third degree burns. I get that she might want them to pay for damages, but she literally dumped it on herself, the reason she was so seriously hurt was because she was 79 years old. If you’re buying hot coffee that’s freshly brewed then it should be obvious it’s hot enough to seriously burn you. If it’s over 150 F then you will get major significant burns.
As to the idea that they had been warned:
“Other documents obtained from McDonald’s showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald’s coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.”
McDonalds purportedly sells more than 50 million cups of coffee per year, over 10 years that was 500 million cups of coffee. 0.00014% is hardly a “warning.”
Actually it was an appeal to emotion. The fact that the coffee was hot enough to fuse her labia together after such a short time is actual evidence of McDonald’s negligence, so not a red herring. Also, pointing out a fallacy in your interlocutor’s argument doesn’t make you right. Also that part wasn’t an argument, so it wasn’t a fallacy in the first place.
700 reports is 700 warnings. I’m sure that McCock tastes good, but McDonald’s does not need you as it’s stoic defender. They’d kill you if they deemed it profitable.
All the assholes have convinced the rest of us that everybody is as heartless as they are. Whereas, it’s genuinely possible to be considerate and still remain in business. If anybody argues otherwise, they’re simply a bad business-person and needs to go out of business ASAP.
Can’t believe so many people here are arguing in Starbucks favour here.
I think it is the principle that a business should be able to charge to recoup their costs. Milk alternatives are undoubtedly more expensive for Starbucks, based not only on the quantity of purchasing, but the additional refrigerated space required, and the additional man-hours necessary to stock and use alternatives.
Sad state of affairs that people go out to defend them for such a simple easy thing to change.
It’s simple and easy because you’re not the business owner who has to comply. Please understand that if Starbucks needs to comply under the ADA, then so does every other coffee shop, restaurant , and drink stand. This either ends in a loss for the Plaintiffs or an increase in all drinks to the most expensive milk alternative price.
I think it is the principle that a business should be able to charge to recoup their costs.
As if they’re so close to the line that adding an extra $0.02 to the cost of making that cup of coffee means they aren’t recouping the cost anymore?
but the additional refrigerated space required, and the additional man-hours necessary to stock and use alternatives.
As opposed to the refrigerated space and man hours they need to stock cow milk. I don’t see any extra cost here. The material itself, sure, but the space and manpower? No. Again, the actual increased cost is negligible. Spreading the cost over all sales would mean every cup of coffee costs another $0.01.
Dude… just stop. You don’t understand the thin margins a small coffee shop operates under, and that is who this would destroy.
It wont’ “destroy” them that is hyperbolic.
I agree with you, but the alternative (in their mind) would probably be to raise the price of everything to compensate.
Not like Starbucks customers care how much they’re paying though! Lol
Yeah it’s amazing. Starbucks could just accept a 500% profit on every coffee sold instead of 600%. Their markup is insane, even including retail overhead.
But then their C-Suite would be marginally less rich…and their line would go up at a smaller angle…
Probably because an option like soy milk costs over twice as much per volume when compared to cow milk at the consumer level, so therefore any rational person would expect a drink made with the more-expensive non-dairy ingredient to cost more.
To me it’s not defending Starbucks as much as it is defending common sense.
What if they removed all reference of the word “dairy” from their products and made the consumer choose the beverage ingredients item by item, and each ingredient has a different price relative to the cost?
deleted by creator
Why not? I would charge more.
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?
I am allergic to milk. If I ingest it I will die full stop. Food allergies should be considered as a disability in this case because if I wanted coffee with soy milk I shouldn’t be made to pay extra for something out of my control. That being said since my allergies are severe enough I don’t eat anything I don’t make myself so this wouldn’t impact me anyway but I agree with the principle of the case.
What if the dairy substitute was 10x the cost of real milk, I know it isn’t, but what if it were. Or even 100x, just for argument. Are you entitled to get that for the same price?
The issue with the ADA is that it does not specify what counts as a disability, rather it gives an explanation of what is considered a disability. This leads to endless confusion and to court cases exactly like this, which are leveraging the text of the ADA as it stands to make their point.
The lawyer quoted in the article is correct, considering they already accommodate people with diabetes without surcharge, it can be argued the same courtesy needs to be extended to the lactose intolerant, who do not have a “choice” in whether they can consume dairy.
Because they cannot just consume dairy like other customers, the lawyer is arguing that no longer charging for the difference is a “reasonable accomodation” to the fact that their clients bodies cannot process dairy. That definitely rises to the same level of reasoning for those who suffer diabetes, in my opinion.
Anyway, that’s the frustrating thing about a lot of the ADA. It basically requires people who don’t know if their unique position qualifies them to spend a lot of money on lawyers up-front just to find out if the courts will actually accept that as true. It’s really well fucked because most disabled people don’t have money to be pissing away on such a legal project. Most of them are busy just trying to survive. In other words, most of the time you have to hope a lawyer will take up your case pro-bono.
Source: My cancer isn’t cancery or debilitating enough to count as a disability, even though “cancer” is in the list on the ADA website.
I got a disability lump sum for temporary disability due to a nerve disorder. It was based on my previous income and the percentage of time an expert judge I was able to work. (20% according to the expert.)
I only for $14,000 for 3 years of being disabled.
The disorder is now managed with medication, incidentally.
This leads to endless confusion and to court cases exactly like this, which are leveraging the text of the ADA as it stands to make their point.
That’s how common-law systems are designed to work, though (along with delegation to regulators in the executive branch). You can’t really expect the legislature to think through every single nuance and corner-case a-priori, right?
Oh of course, but I was speaking of people who are seriously disabled (not just people with lactose intolerance) and that severely impacts their ability to just go out and get a lawyer to fight for their rights.
Like, the lactose intolerant, I’m pretty okay with them needing to come up with the money to prove it in court. Lactose intolerance may be considered a disability, but it doesn’t rise to the level of disability that makes it hard to hold a job.
However, a lot of other people are stuck, shit out of luck, unable to work, hell, often unable to move, and they’re still fighting for their problems to be recognized as a disability. Further, even with a disability that’s accepted as a disability, you still have to go to court and fight, often for years, to get a disability recognized. You’re not allowed to work while you’re waiting for that classification. It’s just a bad system for it.
The common-law system is fine and good, but we’re all aware of how it’s absolutely tilted in favor of people who have money and against those who don’t.
Yeah like if they had a mega list of every disability they could think of, but forgot one, or a new one is discovered, what happens in court? Said new/forgotten disability wouldn’t legally be a disability.
Even if it isn’t, I’d prefer a world where people aren’t shitting their pants or leaving toxic fart clouds in their wake because they need to save .50 on a coffee.
Gluten free up charge is a thing everywhere and Starbucks is so overpriced that I go to a gas station for the occasional cup of to go coffee I get and there’s no real dairy anywhere there.
Lactose intolerance is actually normal. It’s tolerance to lactose as an adult that is biologically unusual, and mostly unique to westerners. Because most of us continue eating dairy products after infancy, we continue being able to digest them. However other cultures don’t continue consuming dairy after infancy, and thus lose their ability to digest it effectively.
It’s a really tough argument to claim it as a disability. I don’t see this case going well for the plaintiffs.
deleted by creator
Adult lactose digestion (called lactase persistence) has evolved a few times from various mutations — one that happened in Europe, and several in Africa and the Middle East. It’s not caused in individuals by continued consumption.
That’s a super weird point of view. If your argument is wrt global averages and your view of normal is black hair, brown eyes, and some average between average Chinese and Indian populations, I suppose you’re right…but not in a way that’s remotely useful.
If it does, then the cost difference to the business should probably be subsidized / written off in taxes.
removed by mod
If you adhere to that philosophy, then why not adhere to the fact that there are other coffee shops customers can take their business and let the better shop who can achieve cheaper rates for alternative milks win as opposed to imposing a price control?
This isn’t Healthcare where shopping around isn’t an option, and it isn’t a niche thing where there isn’t competition.
Shit I’m all for strong market regulations, but this might be a tad too far and ignorant to business ownership – especially one where we seek new entrepreneurs and not mega companies who can afford teams of lawyers.
removed by mod
Because no one has ever made an unjust law, right?
removed by mod
Yeah of course, that’s so unfair to tell business people that they can’t overcharge people
Can you demonstrate that they are overcharging? Have you calculated the costs? Did you include the extra refrigeration space required, the wholesale cost of bulk milk in non-consumer packaging versus milk alternatives likely purchased by the case in consumer packaging? Do their distributors charge more for milk alternatives because they represent a lower volume than traditional milk.
So here is how this goes just so you know.
Now all of the drinks go up in price so that the charge is just absorbed by the other customers.
The business makes no less money, hell they probably make more profit now and now everyone has to pay extra.
Well no shit, but the obvious questions hanging over us are: 1) Does this apply to the letter of the law, or the spirit; and second to that 2) should such a law exist? 3) Why are you invoking double-standards for business competition when arguably coffee shops who don’t meet a competitive price-point for a non-essential item will lose? I say again what was clearly deflected: a) this is not a situation where consumers cannot shop around, and b) this is not a niche service that cannot be found elsewhere.
If you want markets whatsoever and thriving small-businesses, this is the kind of shit that as an aggregation cripples competition with mega-corporations
I’m lactose intolerant but even I think this is absurd. What about every other food allergy in existence? Should substitutions cost the same even if the ingredients don’t? Furthermore, we’re talking about a splurge item from a coffee shop. You can still make coffee at home or buy coffee without milk in it.
Well the ADA only requires ‘reasonable’ accommodations. So I guess the logic of this case would be that if the substitution only costs a little bit more than the original ingredient then they should offer it at the same price. But this would still allow for business to charge extra when making the substitution would be ‘unreasonably’ expensive.
Therein lies the rub as what one person considers reasonable another might not. Charging 1:1 for the increased cost of almond or soy milk seems reasonable but charging an additional markup over what they set for dairy milk might not be.
If their case has merit, I hope they win, but I honestly wish these lawyer fees and court time could be better used to tackle more lucrative issues like suing Ticketmaster/Live Nation for their whole anti-consumer business model and price gouging or suing Comcast for their monopoly in my area. There are probably 1000 different places to buy coffee in my city but only one way to buy event tickets and one company offering broadband/high speed internet.
What’s absurd is that Almond, Soy, and Oat doesn’t cost more than dairy milk when you look at prices at a grocery. But Starbucks charges extra for it anyway.
What’s absurd is thinking that this argument makes logical sense. Do you think Starbucks buys milk at the grocery store? What do you think the ratio of milk to each milk alternative is? 100:1? 1000:1? The scale at which the purchase each would greatly affect the price.
When I worked at a restaurant that used a lot of milk it came in a 3 or 5 gallon plastic sack that went into a dispensing machine. Milk alternatives are likely purchased by the case in consumer packaging. The cost is entirely different.
I think a lot of people have no idea that many dairy alternatives are essentially the same price now. And that’s at a retail consumer level where the markups are biggest in the chain, bulk wholesale like what Starbucks pays would have an even smaller gap.
People are assuming there’s a massive difference in price, that just doesn’t really exist anymore… And that also ignores the absolutely MASSIVE markup Starbucks has for their coffee in the first place. It definitely doesn’t cost Starbucks $.50 to use Oat milk instead of regular milk, but that’s what they might charge the consumer for the substitution in a $6 coffee that cost them maybe $0.50 to make.
Lactose intolerance is the default for adults too. Them calling it a disability is wild.
deleted by creator
Or they can remove the dairy product at no additional fee (which they do). If someone wants to add an additional, more expensive ingredient, then they can pay for it.
The ingredient is only more expensive because cow’s milk is subsidized.
Well, maybe they are suing the wrong entity then. Dunkin and Starbucks don’t set the price of almond milk.
Sure, they don’t. But they are also massively overcharging consumers for something that barely costs them anything extra.
I’m looking at the online site for my local big chain grocery store. This is what I’m seeing, all for half gallon sizes:
- Store brand regular milk is $2.69 for 2% and $2.79 for whole
- Simple truth almond milk is $2.99
- Store brand lactose free milk is $3.99 for all varieties (on sale from $4.49)
- Simple truth soy milk is $3.49 for all varieties
- Califia farms oat milk is $4.29 for all varieties (on sale from $5.99)
These are all the less expensive alternatives. So almond milk is slightly higher than regular, but the others are a pretty significant percent increase.
While you’re right, we’re talking about a pretty small amount of price difference for Starbucks.
A quick Google search says that a grande latte from Starbucks (16Oz) is about 14.6 Oz of milk.
Using the retail numbers (remember Starbucks has negotiated contracts with wholesale suppliers for their milk, they likely pay much less than retail cost) that is about 4.2¢/fl oz for regular milk and about 4.7¢/fl oz for almond milk. In terms of milk cost, a Starbucks grande latte is about 61¢ of regular milk and 68¢ of almond milk.
They then charge you 70¢ EXTRA for the almond milk, when they are only spending around 7¢ more to use it in your drink. They’re clearly just taking advantage of many people’s inability to process lactose. Though, I’m a bit biased since I’m one of them. I’m heavily lactose intolerant, so take that as you will.
While looking up the numbers I also learned that it’s estimated that around 68% of the world’s population is lactose intolerant, and it mostly affects non-white ethnic groups.
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 don’t know what the profit margins of Starbucks are, but in many cases they’re much tighter than people realize. The sale price has to cover materials, wages, insurance, property costs, and lots of other things. $1 a serving would be a pretty huge percent increase.
You could make the same argument about anything. I want the higher end iPhone and they should give it to me for the same price as the lower end to be considerate. If they don’t they’re greedy. I want leather seats in my car for the same price as cloth. And there are loads of restaurants that charge extra for substitutions if the substitute costs more (e.g., “premium sides”).
I used to work in restaurants (both big and small), and while what you said is true, it only cost $1-2 extra per serving. But the restaurant can never stock their ingredients by “per serving”. They have to buy wholesale from their suppliers. It really hurts smaller businesses when they only get to use a couple servings out of their 5 gallon non-dairy milk jug, then have to throw it out. Those things added up fast, and that’s just one example.
It’s common in restaurants and cafés in Europe to use normal 1L milk cartons even for normal milk - can’t that be done in the US as well?
I get why restaurants need to buy in bulk, but why is the packaging is so huge?
All the coffee shops I know use the same 1 quart carton for non-dairy milk that I use at home. They come in a box of 12 if you buy them in bulk.
I have no idea why the other commenter thinks the packaging is different.
they only get to use a couple servings out of their 5 gallon non-dairy milk jug
Don’t buy so much at one time then? Doesn’t seem that difficult a problem to solve, I do it every time my dairy-averse partner stays over for the weekend. Buy an amount that is reasonable for expected usage needs, it’s easy. I’m not out here buying a 5 gallon bucket and then whining when my guests haven’t drank all of it.
When you don’t buy in bulk your unit costs go up.
Could someone with lactose intolerance not merely omit the milk?
I mean that limits you to just straight black. no latte, cappuccino, nothing
not against black coffee, but that’s not why people go to starbies
I mean, this could apply very easily to a steakhouse too and vegetarians. Vegetarians would be limited to just salads and sides, but those aren’t why people go to a steakhouse.
That would be an actual reasonable accommodation in this case.
This is the same as the argument that tall people need more leg room on a plane, and shouldn’t be charged to upgrade their seat. Or that someone with a bad back should be able to fly business for free.
I mean, certain airlines are starting to adopt size policies which will grant you an additional seat if you are overweight. Why is it such a stretch to believe that tall people should receive the same accommodation?
I’d say that if anything, the tall people should receive the accommodation but the overweight people should not.
both in this cases these would be counted as disabilites under the ADA… also there is no reason why someone who is overweight should not be accomidated
Who is actually doing the suing here? If it’s the ADA themselves then this is a mockery and it makes the ADA look like a joke. I’m lactose intolerant. Being lactose intolerant it is not medically necessary to not drink milk. I can drink milk. I can eat cheese, yogurt, etc. If I think about it, I take a little pill that has lactase in it to help. If I don’t then I get diarrhea and then I move on with my life. Not to mention, nobody is forcing you to go to Starbucks. If you don’t want to drink milk and you don’t want to pay extra, then don’t go to Starbucks. I know that’s a hard concept for some to understand but you have free will. You can break free from the clutches of capitalism. I absolutely hate Starbucks and haven’t been to one since 2012 and even I think this lawsuit is frivolous.
Edit: after reading your comments I see everyone’s point. With that being said, wouldn’t pizza places that charge more for gluten-free crust fall under the same category?
That’s not how the ADA works. You could say the same for wheelchair ramps, but ultimately it’s on the store owner to reasonably provide accomodations to people who want to use their services. It’s not on the disabled person to pick and select who will accommodate them or not. It’s why businesses are required to reserve a portion of their parking lot to those with handicap placards. It shouldn’t be up to each disabled person to figure out which business they can go to.
What Starbucks is doing would be akin to Walmart charging an extra buck for you to use one of their mobility scooters or an extra $5 if you require the assistance from an employee because you can’t reach something.
Lactose intolerance is not a disability.
You cant sue Five Guys because you have a peanut allergy and they didn’t provide you a safe peanut free environment.
You can’t sue McDonald’s because they don’t have a non dairy cheese replacement for your cheeseburger.
Unless they claim to have an allergen-free kitchen.
deleted by creator
But a latte is a dairy based product, the non dairy cheaper alternative would be coffee. As the non dairy cheaper alternative of a cheeseburger is to remove the cheese.
ADA doesn’t care about cheaper, watching the movie with no dialogue is cheaper than giving a closed captioning box to deaf people, but theaters still have to do it. The standard is undue burden. Starbucks is going to have a hard time claiming it’s going to bankrupt them if they can’t charge extra for oat milk.
deleted by creator
Black coffee and a latte are not the same product just because they both are coffee-based drinks. A latte doesn’t use brewed coffee at all, it uses espresso shots, and thus is mostly milk, not coffee. If you ordered a latte and got a cup of black coffee, that doesn’t even come close to what you ordered, unlike your hamburger/cheeseburger analogy where only the cheese of the difference
Either way, Starbucks does provide a non-dairy alternative for their latte however already: oat milk, almond milk, and soy milk, but they charge for those alternatives and that is where the issue is.
If they did not provide alternatives at all, or if they did not charge extra, there would be no issue. They either would have to remove the alternative options, which would reduce choice for everyone, or provide an alternative at no additional cost, which only eats into their massive profit margins a tiny bit. At wholesale bulk amounts like they buy, the cost difference is negligible for the product, and the markup on that substitution is insane.
I don’t know the ins and outs of the ADA, but I disagree with your analogy. What Starbucks is doing is akin to Walmart charging a different price for milk and oat milk, which I don’t think anyone would say is not allowed. It’s not like there’s a sheet of lactose you have to walk through to get into a Starbucks or anything, there’s just things on the menu that people with some food allergies can’t order.
I think you’re missing the big picture.
Just because one can choose not to go to Starbucks doesn’t relieve Starbucks of the requirement to provide equal access and provide equitable services to those with a disability or medical limitation.
Just because you are lactose intolerant and can handle things with with some milk products doesn’t mean that everyone with lactose intolerance can. There can be those that have much more severe reactions.
There are also those that truly cannot have diary at all. People have full blown milk allergies where if they ingest diary they could have anaphylaxis shock.
Making accomodations for equitable products/services for a medical disability cannot cost extra to the disabled person.
I don’t think it means that all non-dairy creamers necessarily need to be available for free. It only means that one does. Whatever non-dairy creamer is likely the cheapest.
deleted by creator
While I understand and agree with a lot of what you say, the idea that you can just go somewhere else doesn’t fly. The same argument can be used to justify shops without handicapped accessible doorways, or restaurants where smoking is allowed. After all, you can just go somewhere else…
The relevant regulation is Title III of the ADA, which is the part that applies to private businesses.
36.307 Accessible or special goods:
(a) This part does not require a public accommodation to alter its inventory to include accessible or special goods that are designed for, or facilitate use by, individuals with disabilities.
(b) A public accommodation shall order accessible or special goods at the request of an individual with disabilities, if, in the normal course of its operation, it makes special orders on request for unstocked goods, and if the accessible or special goods can be obtained from a supplier with whom the public accommodation customarily does business.
© Examples of accessible or special goods include items such as Brailled versions of books, books on audio cassettes, closed-captioned video tapes, special sizes or lines of clothing, and special foods to meet particular dietary needs.
From my understanding Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk. As they do not do special inventory orders for customers, they could remove the non-dairy milk options from the menu without violating the ADA.
But because Starbucks currently offers non-dairy milk, those options are subject to the ADA, specifically:
36.301© Charges.
A public accommodation may not impose a surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures, such as the provision of auxiliary aids, barrier removal, alternatives to barrier removal, and reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, that are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part.
In my amateur reasercher’s opinion, this case seems sound. Charging extra for milk alternatives is probably a violation of the ADA.
You make really good points. But I’m going to call out this point…
But because Starbucks currently offers non-dairy milk, those options are subject to the ADA, specifically:
Oat milk is not milk. It’s a completely different product made from grain, not mammals. If I’m lactose intolerant at a bar can I request vodka? It has about as much relation to cow’s milk as oat milk. In fact, I think vodka arguably closer to oat milk than cow’s milk. The only reasonable one for one replacement for cows milk is lactase treated cow’s milk. Anything else is not comparable.
Or, what if Starbucks stocked lactase treated goat’s milk. Is that a substitute for cow’s milk? It’s much more similar to cow’s milk than oat milk.
It seems not a slam dunk here, to me, specifically because of the first section. Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk as an accommodation, according to your first quote.
Since Starbucks is not required to offer non-dairy milk, that last paragraph doesn’t apply at all, because they aren’t charging more for a required accommodation.
It wouldn’t change their inventory at all though.
My conclusion is that the case has merit, and is not frivolous. I don’t want to conclude anything beyond that, because that’s what courts and lawyers are for, and I am neither.
If this were a slam dunk, starbucks would have probably chosen to either not charge, or not offer non-dairy milk. It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.
Stop giving these greedy corporations money. There’s other alternatives for your coffee fix.
