Commitments And Contingencies (Notes)

12 Months Ended

Oct. 03, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies

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 brewed coffee. The lawsuit is Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corporation, et al. On May 9, 2011, the Plaintiff 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 packaged coffee. The lawsuit is Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Brad Barry LLC, et al. Both cases have since been consolidated and now include nearly eighty defendants, which constitute the great majority of the coffee industry in California. Plaintiff alleges that the Company and the other defendants failed to provide warnings for their coffee products of exposure to the chemical acrylamide as required under California Health and Safety Code section 25249.5, 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 of coffee products, 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 May 7, 2018, the trial court issued a ruling adverse to defendants on the Phase 2 defense, the Company's last remaining defense to liability. On June 22, 2018, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) proposed a new regulation clarifying that cancer warnings are not required for coffee under Proposition 65. The case was set to proceed to a third phase trial on damages, remedies and attorneys’ fees on October 15, 2018. However, on October 12, 2018, the California Court of Appeal granted the defendants request for a stay of the Phase 3 trial.

On June 3, 2019, the Office of Administrative Law approved the coffee exemption regulation. The regulation became effective on October 1, 2019. On June 24, 2019, the Court of Appeal lifted the stay of the litigation. At the status conference on August 25, 2020, the trial judge granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that the coffee exemption regulation is a complete defense to the Plaintiff’s complaint. The Notice of Entry of Judgment from the court was served on October 6, 2020, and the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on November 20, 2020, and its opening brief in the appeals process on April 9, 2021. Defendants filed their response brief on August 9, 2021, and Plaintiff filed a reply on November 15, 2021. Starbucks believes that the likelihood that the Company will ultimately incur a material loss in connection with this litigation is less than reasonably possible. Accordingly, no loss contingency was recorded for this matter.

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.