Starbucks Corporation
SBUX
Consumer Discretionary
4
exclusion reasons
2 themes
This page is part of our public exclusion list — a transparency tool that shows which companies we screen out and why. It is not investment advice, and it is not an accusation. But it is subject to change as our understanding of the facts evolves.
Starbucks Corporation has faced repeated legal and community challenges over its market expansion tactics, which critics and plaintiffs have characterized as predatory. A 2016 antitrust lawsuit alleged the company engaged in anticompetitive practices, including offering to pay property leases above market rates to secure prime retail locations and exclude competitors. This followed a history of community opposition, such as in San Diego's Ocean Beach neighborhood in 2014, where over 500 residents organized against a proposed store, accusing the company of undermining local character. For decades, from New York City pushcart disputes in 2002 to present-day criticisms, the company has been accused of employing a market saturation strategy that systematically targets and displaces independent local cafes.
Starbucks Corporation is under investigation for securities fraud following the filing of a class action lawsuit. The Schall Law Firm announced an investigation into claims on behalf of investors, and Johnson Fistel is investigating the company's directors for potential breaches of fiduciary duty. These formal probes followed allegations concerning the company's disclosures and conduct.
Separately, Starbucks has a documented history of regulatory and consumer protection violations. According to ViolationTracker, the company paid a $1.3 million penalty in 2020 to settle a federal lawsuit alleging Fair Credit Reporting Act violations. The company has also reached multimillion-dollar settlements in employment-related lawsuits, including a $23.5 million settlement in one case.
Starbucks Corporation faces documented allegations of forced labor within its coffee supply chain. In April 2025, a lawsuit filed in U.S. federal court (John Doe I v. Starbucks Corporation, D.D.C. # 25-01261) accused the company of sourcing coffee from Brazilian plantations using slave labor. The complaint, brought by an anti-forced labor group, alleges violations took place on thousands of supplier plantations. This followed a 2023 investigation that found slave and child labor on certified coffee farms supplying Starbucks, highlighting labor irregularities at the farm level. The company, which sources packaged Arabica coffee beans for its global network of over 38,000 stores, has been the subject of multiple complaints to U.S. authorities linking its supply chain to forced labor in Brazil.
Starbucks Corporation has engaged in extensive political activity to influence labor law and enforcement. The company is a member of the National Restaurant Association, a trade group that lobbies against minimum wage increases and the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. Starbucks’ own federal lobbying disclosures show expenditures targeting “labor and employment issues” and “labor relations,” specifically naming the PRO Act and the National Labor Relations Board.
This political engagement coincides with a documented pattern of anti-union activity. The National Labor Relations Board has issued over 100 complaints against Starbucks since 2021, finding the company illegally fired union organizers, closed unionized stores, withheld raises from unionized workers, and refused to bargain in good faith. In 2024, a federal judge ordered Starbucks to reinstate fired workers and cease anti-union intimidation nationwide, noting the company’s “egregious and widespread misconduct.” Starbucks’ political lobbying seeks to shape the regulatory environment that governs these very labor practices.
Research Sources
27 organizations
Related Exclusions
Wondering what we do invest in?
The Naughty List
A digest of changes to our exclusion list — new additions, removals, and the evidence behind them. We review the list continuously as new evidence surfaces.
Companies appear on our exclusion list based on our investment judgment — not because they've done anything illegal. This is a difference of values and opinion, not an accusation of wrongdoing. Exclusion does not constitute a recommendation against investing in any company, and absence from the list does not constitute a recommendation to invest.
This information is provided for educational and transparency purposes only and should not be relied upon as investment advice. Data is drawn from independent watchdogs, NGOs, government registries, and Ethical Capital's ongoing research — see Research Sources for the full list.
Ethical Capital LLC is a state-registered investment adviser in Utah (CRD #316032). Registration does not imply a certain level of skill or training.