Dunkin Donuts is catching heat for charging more for non-dairy milk. Apparently, those who purchased non-dairy alternatives, such as soy, almond, or oak milk, may have paid as much as $2 more for the product.
A new potential class-action lawsuit claims the upcharge “violates the Americans with Disabilities Act” and can constitute discrimination.
The suit was filed in December in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It seeks class certification and represents 10 Dunkin Donuts customers who claim they purchased drinks that had “non-diary” milk alternatives between 2018 and 2023, ABC News reported. The customers also said they paid an additional charge for the “plant-based or lactose-free milk” in California, New York, Texas, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Hawaii.
The plaintiffs listed in the case all suffer from lactose intolerance and milk allergies.
Depending on the date and location, the customers were charged anywhere from 50 cents to $2.15 extra for the substitution, court documents obtained by ABC read.
The lawsuit seeks damages amounting to no less than $5,000,000, and plaintiffs demanded a jury trial. The popular coffee chain has until March 4 to respond.
The lawsuit furthers claims that because lactose intolerance and milk allergies are considered disabilities, the chain’s “conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act,” as well as state anti-discrimination laws. Under the ADA, public entities are required to make “reasonable modifications” to their practices and policies when needed for a person who has a disability so that they can afford their goods, services, etc.
It also states that “a public accommodation may not impose a surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures, such as the provision of auxiliary aids, barrier removal, alternatives to barrier removal, and reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, that are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part.”
Plaintiffs claim that Dunkin Donuts failed to make those modifications.
