A Quebec Superior Court judge has authorized a class-action lawsuit against Starbucks, Tim Hortons, and Foodtastic over the premiums they once charged customers for swapping cow's milk with plant-based alternatives, as reported by Green Queen. The ruling clears the way for damages that could reach into the millions, even though all three chains have since scrapped the surcharge.
The conventional defense from coffee chains has long been that plant-based milks simply cost more at retail, so a surcharge reflects real economics. Justice Catherine Martel rejected that framing. She focused on what the companies themselves pay suppliers, not on grocery shelf prices, and concluded the markups were disproportionate enough to plausibly harm consumers under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act.
The starkest example involves Starbucks. Court figures cited in the ruling show the chain paid roughly 12 cents to substitute plant-based milk in a drink, yet charged customers 80 cents for the swap. According to the court ruling, Judge Martel found that Starbucks charged consumers more than six times what it cost the company to substitute plant-based milk for cow's milk in beverages. Tim Hortons charged 50 cents in eastern Quebec for a swap that cost the company about 28 cents, and Foodtastic-owned Second Cup imposed an 80-cent levy on a substitution costing around 43 cents.
The class covers all Quebec consumers who paid the premium between December 30, 2021, and the dates each chain removed it: Starbucks in fall 2024, Tim Hortons in January 2025, and Foodtastic in February 2025. Joey Zukran, the lawyer leading the action at LPC Avocats, told CTV News that while the individual amounts look small, aggregate sales across Quebec could push the total into the millions.
The court did draw limits. Martel rejected the argument that a 50-cent markup at Tim Hortons should be treated as the fair market rate for the surcharge, and she largely declined to extend liability to franchisors, noting that relief typically applies to the merchants who sold the drinks directly. She left open the possibility that franchisors could face damages if they set or encouraged the unfair pricing.
Context matters here. Around 16% of Canadians are lactose intolerant, and by 2024, roughly 30% of Canadians were drinking plant-based milk. Starbucks has also acknowledged that dairy is the single biggest contributor to its carbon footprint. A surcharge on the lower-emission option sits awkwardly against that admission.
The Quebec case lands in a broader shift already underway in North America. VegOut has tracked the same retreat south of the border, including Dunkin' dropping its plant-based milk upcharge and Scooter's Coffee eliminating its surcharge nationwide. What the Quebec ruling adds is a legal mechanism for accountability rather than just a PR-friendly policy change.
The bigger question the case raises is who profits from a pricing structure that taxes customers for choosing the lower-impact, allergen-friendlier option. For years, the surcharge was treated as standard practice, justified by supply costs that the chains' own accounting now appears to undercut. If Quebec consumers prevail, the precedent may push other operators to revisit not just whether they charge extra for oat milk, but how they justify the menu math behind every customization.
