Your Packaging Is Under the Microscope — What the Starbucks Lawsuit Means for Supply Chain Companies

A new class action was filed against Starbucks in January 2026. Plaintiffs allege the company misled consumers with "Committed to 100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing" printed on its packaging — while independent testing reportedly detected industrial solvents, including benzene, toluene, and methylene chloride, in its decaffeinated products. (Williams et al. v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 2:26-cv-00112, W.D. Wash.)

This case isn't just about coffee.

Every word printed on a label is a legal statement. If you are in the packaging, logistics, or supply chain business, continue reading.

False Advertising Exposure - Who Is Responsible?

The Starbucks complaint centers on label claims — marketing language that consumers rely on to make purchasing decisions. Packaging companies are often the ones who print, design, and produce those labels. That creates exposure.

While the courts have held that parties involved in the "creation" of a marketing claim can face liability, the real-world picture is more nuanced. I asked George Salmas, a food and beverage attorney with 35+ years defending marketing claim class actions, to weigh in.

Here is what he shared:

_____________________________________________

First, understand the difference between a private-label brand and a house brand.

A private-label brand is owned by a non-retailer company — think Chobani or Pepsi. A house brand is owned by the retailer itself — think Walmart's Great Value or Aldi's Lunch Buddies. Retailer ownership isn't always obvious. Sometimes it's intentionally disclosed. Sometimes it's intentionally hidden. Both are legal and industry standard.

Who actually gets named as a defendant?

In false label class actions, here is how it typically plays out, according to George:

• House brand: The retailer is the defendant. They own the brand making the misleading claim.
• Private-label brand: Both the brand owner and the retailer can be defendants. The brand owner made the claim on the label. The retailer made the claim by putting the product on their shelf.
• Copackers (contract manufacturers): Most house brand and private-label products are made by a third-party copacker whose name appears nowhere on the packaging. If the label is misleading, the copacker can become a defendant — but usually only if the plaintiff uncovers their identity through civil discovery. In practice, if the plaintiff already has their hooks into the brand owner and retailer, there is plenty of money on the table. The copacker gets added sometimes.”

What this means for packaging companies: If you are a copacker or contract manufacturer, your name may not be on the label — but that does not make you invisible. Your identity can be discovered. Your role in producing and affixing the label can create liability. Contracts and indemnification clauses are your first documents to check.

_____________________________________________

What to do:

• Get the brand's written approval on all label content before production.
• Document every revision, change request, and sign-off.
• Never assume the brand has verified the labels. Ask for substantiation in writing.
• Include indemnification language in your contracts that covers label content disputes.

Regulatory Pitfalls — FDA & State Laws

The Starbucks lawsuit also raises a chemical disclosure issue. Volatile organic compounds — including methylene chloride — were allegedly present in the product but never disclosed on the label.

This is exactly the kind of issue that creates regulatory liability.

FDA Rules: The FDA regulates food labeling under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA). Packaging that omits material safety information can trigger enforcement action — against the brand and, in some cases, the packager.

State Laws: States may also have laws and rules concerning labeling and chemical disclosure. For example, in California, there is Proposition 65: This law requires businesses to warn consumers before exposing them to chemicals linked to cancer or reproductive harm. The list includes over 900 substances. Violation notices can be filed by private plaintiffs — not just regulators. Penalties can reach $2,500 per day, per violation. Recent trends show a sharp rise in Prop 65 claims related to PFAS ("forever chemicals") in food packaging.You can track active notices directly through the California AG's Prop 65 Notice Database.

Packaging companies need to:

• Know which chemicals are present in your inks, coatings, liners, and films.
• Test your materials. Ignorance is not a defense.
• Understand which federal and state regulations about labeling and advertising apply.
• Provide Prop 65-compliant warnings where applicable.
• Track FDA and state regulatory updates, especially the 2024 PFAS-in-food-packaging ban.

The Indemnity Fight Between Manufacturers, Distributors & Packagers

When a brand gets sued over a label claim or a chemical disclosure failure, the first thing their attorneys do is look at the contracts — and look for someone else to blame.

Manufacturers point to distributors. Distributors point to packagers. Packagers point to material suppliers. Everyone points to someone else.

The legal protections available depend heavily on your contracts and indemnity rules. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) and other laws set the baseline requirements — but your contracts and indemnity rules determine who pays when something goes wrong:

• Indemnification clauses allocate who pays when a claim arises. Broad vs. narrow language makes a significant difference.
• Hold harmless agreements can protect a packager from costs arising from the brand's own label decisions.
• Insurance requirements — your contracts should specify who carries what coverage.
• Representations and warranties — the brand should warrant the accuracy of any claims it instructs you to print.

If your supply chain contracts don't address these issues, you may be exposed.

📌 Case Study: Parish v. The Hershey Company — The Wrapper Is the Problem

Case: Jonathan Parish v. The Hershey Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-01868-CCC; and Bernadette Beekman v. The Hershey Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-02234-CCC — both pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

What happened: In October 2024, consumers filed class action lawsuits against Hershey alleging that the wrappers for Hershey's Milk Chocolate Bars, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, Hershey's Kisses, and Kit Kat Bars contained dangerously high levels of PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — also known as "forever chemicals." Independent lab testing by Grizzly Research detected organic fluorine levels as high as 81.5 mg/kg in some wrappers.

Hershey had publicly committed to products meeting "the highest quality, safety and sustainability standards." That language on the packaging became the basis of the fraud claim.

Why it matters for packagers: The lawsuit was about the wrapper — not the chocolate. The packaging itself was the alleged defect. The brand's safety claims, printed on or associated with the packaging, became the evidence.

If you are a packaging supplier to a brand that makes health or safety claims, consult with an attorney to avoid or manage risks.

✅ What Packaging Companies and Teams Should Do Now

1. Audit your materials. Know exactly what is in every ink, coating, film, and liner you use. PFAS, benzene, and other regulated substances can appear in unexpected places.
2. Review your contracts. Do your supplier agreements include indemnification clauses? Who bears the cost when a brand claim is challenged? Who pays if your material is alleged to contain a harmful substance?
3. Demand written approvals on label content. Never finalize a label without written sign-off from the brand on every claim.
4. Stay current on FDA labeling rules and State rules, such as Proposition 65. Regulatory requirements change. Your compliance obligations change with them.
5. Talk to a supply chain attorney before the lawsuit arrives. Contract language, material sourcing decisions, and documentation practices all affect your exposure — and all of them can be fixed proactively.

The Starbucks and Hershey cases are a warning. The wrapper is no longer just packaging. It is a legal document.