Lawsuit claiming Starbucks systematically shorts terrible coffee to proceed


[Read the post]


Imagine Folgers on ice.

I just puked on my computer.


Maybe my tastebuds have rolled over to a new set, but I find Starbucks easier to drink lately. I always go for the lighter roast, which may be a factor. Is it just me, or is it less burnt tasting? I tried some instant Verona blend and found it to be undrinkable- same old burnt taste that kept me away for a while, but the Columbia instant coffee is drinkable.

I’m wondering if anyone else thinks the coffee has changed over the years.


Never seen it here. Do you get this crud in the States?

International Rust is the second-worst excuse for coffee I’ve ever come across; I have a theory it’s swept up off the floor where they make the third-worst coffee.

As for the absolute worst…

It’s an abuse of the language to call it coffee.


Either my tastebuds changed too or their coffee is not as burnt.
When they first started taking over I did not get it as their coffee just tasted burnt to me. Now tho, it doesn’t taste burnt. Granted I am drinking lattes or iced coffees, but I thats only in the last 8 years. Prior to that I didn’t like them at all.


Is that the asshole drawing from Breakfast of Champions?


That particular asshole drawing was my avatar for a while, so I can tell you that it is.


Our barista neighbor gives us a bag of that blond roast stuff once in a while. It’s not as good as the Ethiopian long-bean we get on the caterwebs, but it’s not so bad as all that. It’s better than these roasters who burn hell out of their coffee in order to compete with Starbucks.
Isn’t that ironical… or something.


That’s where they have you fooled. They secretly replaced the real coffee regularly served as Starbucks cold brew with…


I am more of the don’t return to a business that provides a poor product or service rather than sue the business type. Especially when the product is less than 10 dollars.


“Their coffee is terrible! And their servings are too small!”


It’s not just you. They’ve (wisely) adapted to changes in consumers’ tastes towards lighter roasts—a shift that seems to have accelerated in the last five years or so. I am more than OK with this.


Shit. I had forgotten I was supposed to dislike Starbucks coffee.

Thanks Obama!


Iced coffee has come a long way in the last 10-15 years or so. I remember ordering an iced coffee at the Starbucks down the street from me in Cincinnati, back in 2001. The employee called the manager over: “Iced coffee?”
“Yes, you know, cold coffee. On ice.”
"So… coffee on ice?"
He shrugged and filled a cup with ice, then filled it with hot coffee.

Their regular iced coffee these days (double-strength cold coffee on ice) is actually pretty good. I can’t speak to their cold brew as it’s a bit too pricey for my wallet.


The deal with Starbucks coffee being burny is that is how they extend the life of the coffee. I think they figured out their process so they can still get shelf life without it being burnt. I did a lot of research into coffee, and buying it at a coffee shop is not a bad deal because most home equipment cannot bring the water to the proper temp. There are only three brands that will get you in the right range, and they are pricey.


I worked at Starbucks around 10 years ago, before they did cold brew, and it is true that they would personally make you a good cup of hot coffee and with a specific bean type that’s on hand if you so choose (from a brand new bag if requested even). I can’t imagine how they can do this with cold brew considering the amount of time it takes to steep the grounds, unless they decided to use one of their whipped cream containers (clean of course) to force the grounds to steep within minutes. So saying that they would happily rebrew cold coffee seems very suspect to me, and i don’t know if they’re using designated coffee bags for cold brew so i don’t know how they’d be getting employees to use subpar coffee. I dunno, I don’t frequent coffee shops so i have no stake here.


This is heresay on my part but i think the lay person is convinced that strong coffee (and perhaps even good coffee) is supposed to be extra dark and strong tasting (aka: burnt and bitter) and maybe Starbucks is catering to that market because it gives them the chance to sell bad roasts as a premium thing, and their premium offerings even more expensively. They do genuinely stock some good stuff but i think their commonly used beans are average or worse.
My experience has been that smaller shops will try to source better quality beans as a way to compete. Probably not true for all small shops, but that’s been my experience


I saw somewhere a very good theory about how bottled water was a thing now because people stopped smoking and need something to do with their hands. Seems like Starbucks fills the same need for a social thing to hold. I think it’s really not about coffee and they figured it out a long time ago. You go in and get what you ask for, no matter how crazy. You can have “your” drink and get your special brew wherever you go.


i don’t know about changing that much. i use a blend of folgers 100% colombian and starbucks espresso roast (50/50) to make my standard house blend. there’s something about the acid bite of the folgers mixed with the fetid smokiness of the starbucks that i find very appealing. now godiva’s coffee changed dramatically from 1995 when it was incredible to 1999 by which time it had become mediocre.


When Starbucks introduced their Pike Place medium-roast several years ago, it didn’t sell very well. Many loyal Starbucks patrons complained that it was ‘weak’. If I’m not mistaken, I recall that they even briefly suspended production—and resumed once consumers caught on to the fact that there is a difference between ‘strength’ and ‘flavor’.