According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs say they are lactose intolerant, and it is medically necessary for them to avoid milk.
  • Boozilla@lemmy.worldEnglish
    233·
    9 months ago

    I despise Starbucks, but I’m not sure this lawsuit makes any sense. Those non-cow milks costs them more. Of course, the law often doesn’t make sense, anyway.

    As another commenter said, they could just overcharge for cow milk and make the prices all the same. Then nobody is happy, but it meets the legal requirement (as I understand it).

    • _number8_@lemmy.worldEnglish
      49·
      9 months ago

      Those non-cow milks costs them more.

      so? it’s starbucks. they’ll be fine.

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        71·
        9 months ago

        Those non-cow milks costs them more.

        so? it’s starbucks. they’ll be fine.

        Great logic, but that means every coffee shop everywhere would have to cover the additional costs of being “compliant”.