Starbucks and its union are suing each other over Israeli-Palestinian conflict clashStarbucks and its union are suing each other over Israeli-Palestinian conflict clash

Joanna Fantozzi

This week, after Starbucks tried to distance itself from Workers United when the union ignited a social media boycott by posting a “Solidarity with Palestine” image on the social media site X, the coffee chain has now filed a legal complaint against its union. The legal complaint, filed with the Southern District of Iowa Eastern Division, asks that legal action be taken against Workers United for using its name, logo, and likeness, claiming that the company’s trademark rights have been violated.  

Starbucks also sent a separate cease and desist letter to Starbucks Workers United demanding that the union stop using its name, logos, and other intellectual property, claiming that the usage of the Starbucks name and similar logo “in connection with statements advocating for violence in the Middle East” has “caused irreparable harm” to the company, whose views on the escalated Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been conflated with the views of Starbucks. Florida Senator Rick Scott even called for a nationwide boycott of Starbucks, after the now-deleted social media post was seen by numerous people and media outlets.

“Your organization’s use of the Starbucks name, logos, and branding as part of your organization’s identity misleads the public to erroneously associate the organization’s stated positions with Starbucks,” the letter from Starbucks to Workers United reads. “The public took your organization’s comments to mean that Starbucks supports the attacks on civilians. Starbucks does not support your organization’s position. To the contrary, Starbucks has denounced the use of violence.”

Related:McDonald’s franchisees and Starbucks union stir controversy with public stances on Israel and Hamas conflict

Starbucks is also claiming that “by fomenting anger” with the social media post, Workers United has put baristas’ safety and well-being at risk, because employees now have “de-escalate, calm down, and in some cases engage security for their own safety from customers irate because they mistakenly believe that Starbucks has put itself in the middle of the Middle East conflict and supports attacks on civilians.”

Meanwhile, in response, Workers United has filed its own counterclaim against Starbucks in the Eastern District court of Pennsylvania, seeking declaratory judgment so that the union may continue to use the Starbucks Workers United name and logo. The organization’s lawsuit also includes a defamation claim against Starbucks for insinuating that the union’s social media post in solidarity with Palestine in any way “advocates for violence,” which the organization says is a false accusation.

“Plaintiff believes that defendant was likely referring to a tweet posted on the Starbucks Workers United Twitter account stating ‘Solidarity with Palestine. That tweet was not authorized by the leadership of Workers United or Starbucks Workers United, and it was deleted after approximately 30-40 minutes,” the Starbucks Workers United lawsuit said.

The complaint also states that Starbucks’ accusation is “a transparent effort to bolster its illegal anti-union campaign by falsely attacking the union’s reputation with workers and the public,” and that the tweet did not cause confusion on social media, stating that Sen. Rick Scott even “demanded that Starbucks Corporation ‘denounce’ the Union’s now-deleted tweet,” which means that he did not conflate Starbucks with its union in reading that since-deleted tweet.

Although no legal decisions have been made yet in either case, this is just the latest scuffle between Starbucks and Workers United, both of which have been filing lawsuits against the other side for months in cases regarding claims of union busting and tampering with union elections. This lawsuit and countersuit are set against the backdrop of the terrorist attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent retaliations in Gaza, which most of the restaurant industry has remained silent on, for fear of consumer retaliation.  

Contact Joanna at [email protected]