Starbucks Sued for Human Trafficking in Coffee Supply Chain

Case Overview: A federal lawsuit claims Starbucks knowingly profited from illegal labor practices, including human trafficking and forced labor, on Brazilian coffee farms supplying the global coffee chain.

Consumers Affected: Individuals from Minas Gerais, Brazil, who allege they were trafficked and forced to harvest coffee under slavery-like conditions on farms supplying Starbucks.

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Starbucks is facing a federal lawsuit from nine individuals who allege they were trafficked and forced to work in “slavery-like conditions” on Brazilian coffee farms that supply the global coffee chain. 

Filed under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, the lawsuit claims the company knowingly profited from illegal labor practices and failed to act despite clear evidence of human rights violations in its supply chain.

The plaintiffs accuse Starbucks of benefiting from a widespread labor trafficking scheme involving its Tier 1 supplier, Cooxupé, a powerful Brazilian coffee cooperative. 

The lawsuit also alleges violations of Brazilian anti-trafficking and forced labor laws, as well as common law claims like negligent supervision and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs are seeking damages on behalf of themselves and thousands of similarly affected laborers.

Starbucks Accused of Profiting From Forced Labor

Eight of the nine plaintiffs, many of whom are Afro-Brazilian and from rural Quilombo communities in Minas Gerais, say they were lured by illegal labor recruiters—known as Gatos—who promised good pay and fair conditions. Instead, the plaintiffs describe being trafficked to remote plantations and subjected to inhumane working and living environments.

One plaintiff, a minor at the time, was forced to work barefoot on steep terrain without proper gear, carrying heavy sacks of coffee and sleeping in overcrowded shelters with no running water. The ninth plaintiff is his mother.

Others say their wages were slashed through illegal deductions for food and equipment, and they were threatened with blacklisting if they spoke out. Several were rescued by Brazilian labor inspectors, who placed the farms on the country’s “Dirty List” for documented labor abuses.

An alleged scheme hidden behind certification seals

The lawsuit argues Starbucks had a long-standing and mutually beneficial relationship with Cooxupé, through which it exercised control over the farms’ operations. Plaintiffs claim that Starbucks used its C.A.F.E. Practices certification program to obscure labor violations and market its coffee as “sustainable,” despite knowing of the abuses.

The lawsuit frames this as part of a global pattern: Starbucks allegedly sources coffee from farms in multiple countries known to use child labor and forced labor. Plaintiffs also point to the company’s history of union-busting in the U.S. as evidence of broader labor rights violations.

Despite pledges to uphold international human rights standards, Starbucks is accused of ignoring persistent abuses for the sake of profit. The case calls into question the ethical claims behind one of the world’s most recognized brands—and whether its promises of social responsibility can withstand legal scrutiny.

Starbucks no stranger to lawsuits

The slave labor case is just one of several legal battles currently facing Starbucks. In recent months, the state of Missouri sued the company for allegedly using its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives to engage in discriminatory practices. 

The lawsuit claims Starbucks tied executive compensation to race- and gender-based hiring quotas, offered preferential training and promotions to certain groups, and maintained a quota system for its board of directors.

In January, the National Consumers League filed a separate lawsuit in Washington, D.C., accusing Starbucks of false advertising over its "100% ethical" sourcing claims. The suit alleges the company misleads consumers by promoting its ethical standards while sourcing from farms with documented human rights and labor abuses.

Meanwhile, Starbucks recently prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court in a labor case involving the firing of seven employees in Memphis who were attempting to unionize. The Court ruled in favor of Starbucks, making it harder for courts to swiftly reinstate workers in similar disputes. 

The decision could limit the power of the National Labor Relations Board to seek temporary injunctions against alleged unfair labor practices while administrative cases are pending.

In this case, the plaintiffs want to represent anyone from Minas Gerais, Brazil, who was trafficked since 2105 by a Gato and forced to harvest coffee under slavery-like conditions on a coffee plantation in Minas Gerais that supplies coffee to Defendant Starbucks.  

They are suing for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and seeking injunctive relief, including that they can keep using pseudonyms for their safety, damages, fees, costs, and interest.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: John Doe I, et al. v. Starbucks Corporation
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-01261-UNA
• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 

Plaintiffs' Attorney:

• Terrence P. Collingsworth and Salwa Ahmad (International Rights Advocates)

What are your thoughts on these allegations against Starbucks? Share your opinion below.