this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
383 points (99.7% liked)

News

23311 readers
3598 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The lawsuit calls for the coffee chain to end its “unfair and deceptive” trade practices and argues that the company is aware of the child and forced labor on some of its supplier farms.

A consumer advocacy group is suing Starbucks, the world’s largest coffee brand, for false advertising, alleging that it sources coffee and tea from farms with human rights and labor abuses, while touting its commitment to ethical sourcing.

The case, filed in a Washington, D.C., court on Wednesday on behalf of American consumers, alleges that the coffee giant is misleading the public by widely marketing its “100% ethical” sourcing commitment on its coffee and tea products, when it knowingly sources from suppliers with “documented, severe human rights and labor abuses.”

“On every bag of coffee and box of K-cups that Starbucks sells, Starbucks is heralding its commitment to 100% ethical sourcing,” said Sally Greenberg, CEO of the National Consumers League, the legal advocacy group bringing the case. “But it’s pretty clear that there are significant human rights and labor abuses across Starbucks’ supply chain.”

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 35 points 10 months ago

Aaaaaannnnnnnd they just made enough money to cover the fines.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Who in the blue hell is shopping at Starbucks and expecting ethics and morality?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

More like going to Starbucks because it's there and hoping they're not doing this.

I'm presuming the suit is more of a public relations attack to point out these abuses than it is to correct Starbucks for whatever oversight they screwed up. Which is a good idea - I mean, we just read it now.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

We all know the government is not going to enforce ethics, so smearing their reputation is the best we'll get anyways...

[–] TheDeepState@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Shocked! Shocked I tell you! No, not really.

[–] BobVersionFour@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Did anyone really believe starbuck was using ethical sourcing ?

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Most numbers I have seen report the percentage of humanity that believes in at least one supernatural thing to be around 95%. So I think it is reasonable to conclude that some people believed Starbucks was using cough.... ethical...cough sourcing.

[–] TurtleJoe@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

FYI, all Starbucks brand coffee sold outside of actual Starbucks stores is actually Nestle, which is definitely unethically produced.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 7 points 10 months ago

Is "ethical" even a protected word with a legal definition?

Or is their defense just going to be "we really believe this is ethical, and we are allowed to say what we believe"?

[–] JCreazy@midwest.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The only way to prevent this is to stop drinking Starbucks. I know that sounds blasphemy for a lot of people because apparently they are required to drink it on a daily basis for some reason, but you actually have the choice to never consume it.

[–] Joelk111@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I don't get it. It isn't like it's cheaper than going to a local shop, so just go to a local shop.

[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Only local shop within walking distance of my house is 1: a much further walk, like 3 miles round trip instead of 1 mile round trip, and 2: a place that stayed open during lockdown and became all weird and fuck-the-government about it, so it’s kinda tough.

Plus I’ve gotten to know a lot of the staff at the local Starbucks by name, because during the warmer months I frequently walk my dog there to get a pup cup.

[–] blueeggsandyam@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Consumers are all about consistency. You can have a worse product as long as it is consistent every time. Ordering process being consistent is also important. That is partially why Starbucks pushes their terminology. The terminology also creates a feeling of being in a group and makes it more difficult to order at other places. Then add in gamified reward programs and a good phone app. Starbucks makes it difficult for local places to compete even with a better overall product.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's hard to imagine, but in several places around the continent there aren't local shops. In even more there aren't local shops that are near where people are going. There should be - if we could Patreon up some kinda national chain of local shop coffees that'd be great but that's essentially what Starbucks did in the 90s the olde fashioned way.

Not defending Starbucks at all in any way here, but as an unrelated aside it's hard to remember that in most places in America there was a time before Starbucks when coffee was just pretty bad tasting everywhere. You could doctor it up with sugar or whatever if you had to, but there weren't espresso drinks. it was urn-percolated or pour-over coffee and that was it. Like tea - lots of water. There was "good" coffee from places and then the rest. The alternate reality we live in now where espresso drinks are the norm is kind of great in one sense. Anyway - not related to Starbucks doing awful corporate things for which they should be roundly rejected.

[–] JCreazy@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The option exists to not consume coffee at all.

[–] Joelk111@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Or make it at home.

[–] McDropout@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

And I'm glad the boycotts are hitting them ever harder.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

I find it telling but all too sad that it’s okay to use unethical sourcing but it’s wrong to lie about it.