Consumer Advocacy Group Raises Concerns Over Starbucks’ Digital Tactics
The Washington Consumer Protection Coalition has filed a complaint with Washington’s Attorney General, leveling accusations against Starbucks for employing manipulative tactics through its mobile app. The group contends that Starbucks is utilizing what it terms as “dark patterns,” creating a continuous cycle of beverage purchases that render low funds on a Starbucks Card practically unusable without additional investment.
Unveiling Unfair and Deceptive Practices
The Washington Consumer Protection Coalition characterizes Starbucks’ payment platform as employing “unfair and deceptive digital dark patterns.” According to the coalition, these tactics effectively trap customers into prepaying for the company’s services. In a letter dated December 19, the coalition urgently called on the Attorney General to intervene and put an end to what they deem as Starbucks’ unfair and deceptive conduct.
In response, Starbucks has expressed its commitment to working collaboratively with the State of Washington to ensure compliance with all state laws and regulations. As of now, Washington’s Attorney General has not provided a response to inquiries.
Examining the Dark Patterns
At the heart of the complaint is the accusation that Starbucks engages in the use of dark patterns, a term referring to subtle software strategies that manipulate users into unintended actions, such as spending additional funds or divulging information. The coalition draws parallels to a recent case where Google faced a $40 million fine for deceptive location tracking, citing this as another instance of dark pattern deception.
The coalition argues that these practices have the potential to deceive substantial portions of the public, branding them as illegal. Dark patterns have been under regulatory scrutiny, with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) identifying common patterns, including difficult-to-cancel subscriptions, concealed fees, and tactics to trick consumers into sharing personal data.
Allegations of Exploitation Against Starbucks
The Washington Consumer Protection Coalition, positioning itself as a movement advocating for corporate accountability, accuses Starbucks of exploiting customers through its gift card and app payment methods. The group asserts that Starbucks ensnares users in a perpetual spending cycle, preventing them from fully utilizing prepaid amounts.
According to campaign manager Chris Carter, Starbucks manipulates its payment platform to encourage consumers to leave unspent money, resulting in nearly $900 million in unclaimed gift card and app money over the past five years. Carter argues that this boosts corporate revenue, inflating executive bonuses.
Starbucks, on the other hand, vehemently denies these allegations. Sam Jefferies, a spokesperson for the coffee giant, underlines the company’s commitment to compliance with state laws and regulations.
Subscription-Like Platforms Under Scrutiny
The coalition’s comprehensive 15-page complaint likens Starbucks’ mobile app and digital payment card platforms to an “involuntary subscription.” Customers are restricted to reloading money in increments of $5, with a $10 minimum purchase, preventing them from ever reaching a zero balance. The coalition asserts that this setup allows Starbucks to retain more of the customer’s money.
Starbucks counters this claim, pointing out that customers can use the remaining balance on the app or gift card to pay for their purchase and settle the balance in cash at the store. The dispute underscores the complexity of the issue and the varying perspectives on Starbucks’ digital payment practices.
Significance of Starbucks Mobile App
The Starbucks app has become a pivotal element of the company’s operations, with drive-through and app orders constituting the majority of its purchases. The ongoing investigation into these allegations could have profound implications for Starbucks and may shape the broader discourse around the ethical use of digital payment platforms. As regulatory bodies scrutinize such practices, the case serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges in balancing technological innovation with consumer protection.
