Starbucks And Its Worker Union Are Suing Each Other In Legal Showdown

Starbucks and the union organizing the company’s baristas filed lawsuits against each other on Wednesday after the union rejected the company’s demand to stop using its name and logo. Starbucks is suing the union for trademark infringement, while the union is suing Starbucks for defamation.

Starbucks sent a cease-and-desist letter to the union’s president on Friday after some branches of Starbucks Workers United expressed “solidarity with Palestine” in the Israel-Hamas war in since-deleted social media posts. At the time of the posts, Starbucks issued a statement saying it “unequivocally condemn[s] these acts of terrorism, hate and violence, and disagree[s] with the statements and views expressed by Workers United [the union organizing Starbucks workers] and its members.”

The letter, obtained by Motherboard, stated that the union had made “statements advocating for violence in the Middle East” and must as a result “stop using the Starbucks name, logos, and other intellectual property.” 

On Tuesday, the union’s president, Lynne Fox, sent a letter in response. In this letter, she wrote that the company had failed to “identify any such statement” and that it was in fact “seeking to exploit the ongoing tragedy in the Middle East to bolster the company’s anti-union campaign.” Both parties then filed lawsuits against each other. 

Starbucks’ lawsuit alleges that the union had committed trademark, copyright, and contributory infringement, as well as false affiliation with the company and trademark dilution. It was filed in the Southern District Court of Iowa, the state where one local branch of Starbucks Workers United shared a social media post in support of Palestine. The lawsuit names as defendants Starbucks Workers United and its Iowa City division, Workers United, and parent union SEIU. 

“This action concerns Defendants’ social media posts in support of violence in Israel starting immediately after reports emerged that Hamas had attacked civilians in Israel, and the substantial resulting reputational and other business harm these statements have caused,” Starbucks’ lawsuit states.

“In communicating their own messages about these and a wide range of other topics, Defendants have ubiquitously used the Starbucks name and other identifying symbols to identify themselves,” it continues. “Viewing the parties as one and the same because the Defendants have adopted the Starbucks name and logos as their own, Customers misled and confused over the source or endorsement of the statements put out by Defendants direct their reactions to Starbucks. Statements by Starbucks attempting to distinguish itself from Defendants and their positions have been to no avail.” 

The lawsuit quotes numerous customer emails, including one which reads, “I will never ever set foot in a Starbucks again…From being cop haters and all other kinds of irrational crazy views culminating in support for terrorists. I can’t believe I tolerated you this long.” 

“This is the first day of my boycott at Starbucks after I saw that you support Israel at the expense of Palestine and that you do not look at both sides in this war,” another quoted email reads. “Also, why does an international coffee shop interfere in politics? You only have to sell coffee….please do not interfere in politics, and fuck you.”

Workers United’s lawsuit demands a declaratory judgment to allow Starbucks Workers United to continue using its name and logo. It cites numerous other unions that use their company’s name—such as the Amazon Labor Union, a union of Amazon workers, and Medieval Times Performers United, a union of workers at Medieval Times which recently had a company trademark infringement lawsuit against it dismissed. 

“Workers United and Starbucks Workers United have maintained an identity that is clearly independent from that of Starbucks,” the lawsuit states. “Workers United has no interest in engendering confusion between itself and the corporation whose workers it represents. Particularly given Starbucks’ egregious anti-union campaign, Workers United does not want workers to fear that the Union is somehow controlled or sponsored by the company.”

Workers United’s lawsuit also alleges defamation, and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. 

“Starbucks defamed Workers United through the company’s public statements asserting that Workers United supports ‘terrorism, hate and violence’'” the lawsuit states. “Starbucks has stated and implied that Workers United supports and advocates for violence and terrorism, as part of a transparent effort to exploit the ongoing tragedy in the Middle East to harm the Union’s reputation.”

The lawsuit references Starbucks’ original statement posted on October 11, in response to the since-deleted social media posts expressing support for Palestine. “The post implies that Workers United has made ‘statements’ and expressed ‘views’ supporting ‘terrorism, hate and violence’,” the lawsuit states. “These allegations were false. Starbucks Workers United did not make a ‘statement’ let alone multiple ‘statements’ advocating for violence, nor did the union take a ‘position’ supporting violence.”

“The company’s statements are a transparent effort to bolster its illegal anti-union campaign by falsely attacking the union’s reputation with workers and the public,” the lawsuit states. 

A Starbucks spokesperson wrote in an email that the company believes the union’s lawsuit to be meritless, and directed Motherboard to a statement published on the company’s website. “Such reckless and reprehensible behavior must be addressed through the lens of our partners’ safety and public clarity of Starbucks official position, which condemns the violence in the region,” the statement reads. “This position is apart from our continued commitment to good faith bargaining that we have insisted through hundreds of requests and unfair labor practice filings. Today’s action is a necessary step in defense of our partners and our company.” 

A Workers United spokesperson declined to comment on the record.