- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Dunkin Donuts accused of discrimination for charging extra for non-dairy milk alternatives
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:23 am
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:23 am
LINK
Would absolutely suck to be lactose intolerant, but it costs more to accommodate you as a customer. Why wouldn't they charge you more?
ETA:
Separate Source
quote:
Dunkin' is facing a class action lawsuit asking for at least $5 million in damages from a group of plaintiffs accusing the coffee giant of discriminating against customers who suffer from lactose intolerance and milk allergies by charging them extra for non-diary alternatives.
The 25-page lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California, says when the plaintiffs visited Dunkin’ coffee shops, they "ordered drinks that included milk as part of the regular menu item" and were charged up to $2.15 for them to be made with non-dairy alternatives, "specifically soy, oat, coconut, or almond ‘milk.’"
It continues to say that Dunkin’ will modify its "regular beverage offerings to remove caffeine or make caffeine-free beverages at no additional charge for persons with a variety of conditions, including hypertension," and will alter the sugar content of drinks "for those persons with diabetes or who need to control weight."
quote:
"Plaintiffs... seek declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure that Defendant charges the same price to lactose intolerant customers and customers with milk allergies for the same menu items as regular customers and that it does not add a Surcharge for Non-Dairy Alternatives such as soy, almond, coconut, oat, or other lactose-free ‘milk," the lawsuit also says.
Would absolutely suck to be lactose intolerant, but it costs more to accommodate you as a customer. Why wouldn't they charge you more?

ETA:
Separate Source
quote:
Oat- and plant-based milk in general costs more than cow’s milk. In 2022, retail data showed that plant-based milk cost an average of $7.87 a gallon compared to $4.21 a gallon for cow’s milk, said Daniel Gertner, business analyst at The Good Food Institute.
This post was edited on 1/24/24 at 11:30 am
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:25 am to dcrews
Screw all of them. If you can't drink coffee black then don't drink coffee.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:27 am to dcrews
They could charge them the same price and not provide any creamer of any type
Problem solved
Problem solved
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:28 am to dcrews
What's the cost of milk?
What's the cost of the alternatives?
If the alternatives cost more, you charge more.
God I can't wait until this country collapses under the weight of the massive victim class that makes up the majority of the population now.
What's the cost of the alternatives?
If the alternatives cost more, you charge more.
God I can't wait until this country collapses under the weight of the massive victim class that makes up the majority of the population now.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:29 am to dcrews
quote:
modify its "regular beverage offerings to remove caffeine or make caffeine-free beverages at no additional charge for persons with a variety of conditions, including hypertension," and will alter the sugar content of drinks "for those persons with diabetes or who need to control weight."
So their argument is that Dunkin will remove stuff for free, but won’t remove and then replace with a more expensive item for free?
That’s a terrible argument.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:31 am to dcrews

Caffeinated and decaffeinated are entire product lines which are offered.
If one or the other is no longer profitable, they will be dropped.
Alternatives to their standard creamer? Those are special demands which require stocking ingredients just for that use.
This is not McD charging extra for mayo on a burger since they already have it around for a chicken sandwich. And no one has sued them over charging extra for special orders IIRC.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:32 am to dcrews
These are the selfish pieces of shite that ruin society. There is NO reality in which everyone is perfectly equal. It is an impossible bar that will NEVER be met and the lunatics that believe there is some magic utopia where there are zero differences between people need serious mental help.
If you're fat you are not the same as a skinny person. You will experience reality completely different and it will cost society more resources to accommodate you.
If you're fat you are not the same as a skinny person. You will experience reality completely different and it will cost society more resources to accommodate you.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:33 am to dcrews
quote:
. Why wouldn't they charge you more?
If the customer orders a product for a price then THAT product is what they should receive. However, the plaintiffs class did NOT order the advertised product, plaintiffs ordered a similar one with a different price.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:33 am to BigBinBR
quote:
So their argument is that Dunkin will remove stuff for free, but won’t remove and then replace with a more expensive item for free?
Only in America.
fricking lawyers are the worst.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:33 am to dcrews
Maybe those bigots should be more tolerant of the toe-lacking .
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:34 am to BigBinBR
quote:
So their argument is that Dunkin will remove stuff for free, but won’t remove and then replace with a more expensive item for free?
That’s a terrible argument.
No, the problem is that some members of society see that a voluntary purchase is a necessity.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:34 am to El Segundo Guy
quote:
If you can't drink coffee black then don't drink coffee.
This is such a dumb take about coffee. Can someone explain the thinking behind this?? No different than adding salt, tony's or any other seasoning to food, or drinking sweet tea vs unsweetened tea. What is so bad about adding sugar or cream to coffee.. "If you add seasoning to your food then don't eat food" - sounds silly doesn't it?
I drink my coffee all ways. If its some good percolated coffee, I won't add anything into it. At work, sometimes i add just sugar, or just cream, sometimes both.
Tho I don't get all the fuss about charging more for non dairy options. If it costs more to procure, which I'm sure it does, then they have all the right in the world to charge more. Seems like a bunch of Karens and Soy boys are bitching about their coffee costing more because they prefer something that's not as common as dairy as a creamer. Not to mention, they could just make their coffee at home.
This post was edited on 1/24/24 at 11:40 am
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:34 am to Powerman
quote:
They could charge them the same price and not provide any creamer of any type
This was my initial reaction.
Problem is, they would still say Dunkin is being discriminatory by not offering ANY alternatives.
At which point, you either cave or don't offer any dairy options at all. The latter is going to cost you more in lost customers than the lawsuit.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:44 am to dcrews
Lit Pizza and their $4 upcharge for cauliflower crust 

Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:46 am to dcrews
This has zero chance in court.
Just hoping Dunkin throws them a couple mil to go away.
Just hoping Dunkin throws them a couple mil to go away.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:49 am to dcrews
It's obvious with stories like this that there are a large amount of people that don't understand/don't want to understand business
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:51 am to JetsetNuggs
quote:
don't want to understand business
This is correct
They think it should be a flat fee for a pizza and that they should be able to get 50 toppings, extra cheese, and stuffed crust for no additional charge and that the business should eat the cost.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:56 am to dcrews
Lawyers are killing this country. Any person with a shred of ethics tells someone to GTFO wanting to sue for this.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:59 am to dcrews
Imagine being the lawyer who concocted this bullshite case. Like what it must be like to be a scumbag and to be ok with being a scumbag.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:59 am to RougeDawg
quote:
Any person with a shred of ethics tells someone to GTFO wanting to sue for this.
There needs to be consequences for frivolous lawsuits.
I'd be fine with being fined a large percentage of the damages asked for.
What's the downside?
Popular
Back to top
