It is not a secret that many individuals have been boycotting Starbucks for some time now. The company’s controversial treatment of employees has been a newsworthy topic time and time again, and the Starbucks Workers United union is still fighting for barista contracts to be upheld. In October 2024, this Starbucks Workers United shared support for the Palestinian populations in a now deleted twitter post, writing “Solidarity with Palestine!” In response to this, Starbucks filed a lawsuit against the union, claiming that their affiliation with the company, along with their support of Palestinians, angered the general public and turned away customers. Hearing that the coffee chain views this as an act of support as a tarnish on their reputation, a wide scale boycott of their products spread across the country. 

Starbucks released a short statement addressing their stance on this conflict, writing, “Our hearts break for all affected by the violence and conflict in the Middle East. We’ve always condemned violence against the innocent.” While this may have been an attempt by the company to clear themselves from the controversy, their vague and unclarified stance widely contrasts with the ideals that led them to call support for Palestine a threat to their attraction of customers. This statement can be found on part of a larger page of the company website, titled “Starbucks for the Record.” On this page, commonly asked questions about the corporation’s morality can be found. Some of these include questions about the treatment of workers, fulfillment of contracts, domestic and military support and the company’s celebration of Pride, all of which have been the opposite of progressive in the past. Despite the company’s claim to be dedicated to transparency and equality, their website’s link to their views is clouded by irrelevant messages about the hiring and retirement of board members, motivational messages to those employed by the company and claims to support the workers union despite filing public lawsuits against Starbucks Workers United. 

Starbucks, having warranted a boycott, did exactly what their claims against the union were, and turned away customers by exhibiting behavior not warranting consumer support. Many coffee-drinking caffeine fanatics shifted their purchases to smaller, local businesses. At the peak of the boycott, many of these smaller businesses were not only attracting a larger number of customers, but their advertisements were able to reach a larger audience as well. In addition to typically having openly fair ethics, these establishments tend to offer a more unique assortment of drinks and foods. The most notably advertised items included drinks that were far from the average Starbucks menu, including customizations like lavender, mint, or even blackberry. Even those who chose to ignore the boycott were prompted to support these local businesses in attempts to try these new, popular drinks. 

As most large corporations do, however, Starbucks quickly adapted their menu to include these items, introducing them as their own groundbreaking and innovative ideas. In Feb. 2025, the company added an array of blackberry-based refreshers, such as the Midnight Refresher, Blackberry Sage Lemonade Refresher and a plain Blackberry Sage Refresher. While these drinks are currently listed as limited items, it has become clear that the ideas for such drinks originated from smaller, less-known establishments, of which are getting no credit whatsoever. More recently, in March, Starbucks introduced yet another variety of items originating from other businesses, this time including lavender and cherry lattes, matchas and chais. While these ideas have not been patented and do not legally belong to smaller businesses, it is evident that Starbucks’ introduction of such items are direct attempts to attract those interested away from their local cafés and coffee shops.

While it is unfortunate to see this marketing tactic at work, it comes with the positive news that the boycott did enact enough results in the company’s profits that they had to strategically steal from their competing small-businesses. With this, it is important to remember to stick to avoidance of larger-scale businesses and corporations when similar (or maybe even better) products can be found from individually-owned businesses that directly contribute to the local economy.