According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs say they are lactose intolerant, and it is medically necessary for them to avoid milk.
  • jimerson@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 years ago

    I hate to say anything in defense of Starbucks (as a small Coffee House owner), but non-dairy costs more in general. It’s not like they are upcharging because they want to stick it to the lactose intolerant.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 years ago

    The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that lactose intolerance is a disability listed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the surcharges violate that act.

    Is it though? I mean don’t get me wrong, it sucks that people who are lactose intolerant have to pay more, but is it really a disability?

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      0·
      2 years ago

      I’m lactose intolerant but even I think this is absurd. What about every other food allergy in existence? Should substitutions cost the same even if the ingredients don’t? Furthermore, we’re talking about a splurge item from a coffee shop. You can still make coffee at home or buy coffee without milk in it.