Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)	6 Months Ended
Apr. 01, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings On April 13, 2010, an organization named Council for Education and Research on Toxics (“Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company and certain other defendants who manufacture, package, distribute or sell coffee. The lawsuit is Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corporation, et al.. On May 9, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed an additional lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company and additional defendants who manufacture, package, distribute or sell coffee. The lawsuit is Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Brad Barry LLC, et al.. Both cases have since been consolidated for all purposes as __________________and now include nearly one hundred defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the Company and the other defendants failed to provide warnings of the chemical acrylamide under section 25249.5 of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including providing warnings to consumers, as well as civil penalties in the amount of the statutory maximum of two thousand five hundred dollars per day per violation of Proposition 65. The Plaintiff asserts that every consumed cup of coffee, absent a compliant warning, is equivalent to a violation under Proposition 65. The Company, as part of a joint defense group organized to defend against the lawsuit, disputes the claims of the Plaintiff. Acrylamide is not added to coffee, but is present in all coffee in small amounts (parts per billion) as a byproduct of the coffee bean roasting process. The Company has asserted multiple affirmative defenses. Trial of the first phase of the case commenced on September 8, 2014 and was limited to three affirmative defenses shared by all defendants. On September 1, 2015, the trial court issued a final ruling adverse to defendants on all Phase 1 defenses. Trial of the second phase of the case commenced in the fall of 2017. On March 28, 2018, the trial court issued a proposed ruling adverse to defendants on the Phase 2 defense, the Company’s last remaining defense to liability. The March 28^thruling is not final. Should the trial court finalize and affirm its proposed ruling in Phase 2, trial would proceed to a third phase regarding remedies issues. At this stage of the proceedings, prior to a trial on remedies issues, Starbucks is unable to predict the potential loss or effect on the Company or its operations. The trial court has discretion to impose zero penalties against the Company or to impose significant statutory penalties. Significant labeling or warning requirements that could potentially be imposed by the trial court may increase our costs and adversely affect sales of our coffee products, as well as, involve substantial expense and operational disruption, which could have a material adverse impact on our financial position and our results of operations. Furthermore, a future appellate court decision could reverse the trial court rulings. The outcome and the financial impact of settlement or the trial or appellate court rulings of the case to the Company, if any, cannot be predicted. Starbucks is party to various other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including certain employment litigation cases that have been certified as class or collective actions, but, except as noted above, is not currently a party to any legal proceeding that management believes could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

On April 13, 2010, an organization named Council for Education and Research on Toxics (“Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company and certain other defendants who manufacture, package, distribute or sell coffee. The lawsuit is Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corporation, et al.. On May 9, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed an additional lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company and additional defendants who manufacture, package, distribute or sell coffee. The lawsuit is Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Brad Barry LLC, et al.. Both cases have since been consolidated for all purposes as __________________and now include nearly one hundred defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the Company and the other defendants failed to provide warnings of the chemical acrylamide under section 25249.5 of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including providing warnings to consumers, as well as civil penalties in the amount of the statutory maximum of two thousand five hundred dollars per day per violation of Proposition 65. The Plaintiff asserts that every consumed cup of coffee, absent a compliant warning, is equivalent to a violation under Proposition 65.

The Company, as part of a joint defense group organized to defend against the lawsuit, disputes the claims of the Plaintiff. Acrylamide is not added to coffee, but is present in all coffee in small amounts (parts per billion) as a byproduct of the coffee bean roasting process. The Company has asserted multiple affirmative defenses. Trial of the first phase of the case commenced on September 8, 2014 and was limited to three affirmative defenses shared by all defendants. On September 1, 2015, the trial court issued a final ruling adverse to defendants on all Phase 1 defenses. Trial of the second phase of the case commenced in the fall of 2017. On March 28, 2018, the trial court issued a proposed ruling adverse to defendants on the Phase 2 defense, the Company’s last remaining defense to liability. The March 28^thruling is not final. Should the trial court finalize and affirm its proposed ruling in Phase 2, trial would proceed to a third phase regarding remedies issues.

At this stage of the proceedings, prior to a trial on remedies issues, Starbucks is unable to predict the potential loss or effect on the Company or its operations. The trial court has discretion to impose zero penalties against the Company or to impose significant statutory penalties. Significant labeling or warning requirements that could potentially be imposed by the trial court may increase our costs and adversely affect sales of our coffee products, as well as, involve substantial expense and operational disruption, which could have a material adverse impact on our financial position and our results of operations. Furthermore, a future appellate court decision could reverse the trial court rulings. The outcome and the financial impact of settlement or the trial or appellate court rulings of the case to the Company, if any, cannot be predicted.

Starbucks is party to various other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including certain employment litigation cases that have been certified as class or collective actions, but, except as noted above, is not currently a party to any legal proceeding that management believes could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.