Three of Canada’s best-known coffee chains now face a court-authorized class action over plant-based milk surcharges in Quebec, after a judge found it arguable that consumers were being charged more than six times the underlying substitution cost for non-dairy options. On 10 June 2026 in Montreal, Quebec Superior Court Justice Catherine Martel allowed a lawsuit against Starbucks, Tim Hortons and Second Cup to proceed, targeting premiums on beverages made with soy, oat and other alternatives instead of cow’s milk.
In her written judgment, Justice Martel cited procurement data indicating that Starbucks’ average cost to swap cow’s milk for a plant-based alternative was $0.12, while the company billed customers an $0.80 surcharge plus taxes for that change (CP24; Chronicle). According to the same court analysis, Second Cup’s substitution cost was about $0.43 against an $0.80 surcharge, and Tim Hortons’ cost was about $0.28 in eastern Quebec compared with a $0.50 surcharge (Chronicle). All three figures are described in the judgment as court calculations based on the chains’ own purchasing data.
Justice Martel wrote that, “By its own admission, Starbucks therefore charges consumers more than six times the cost it incurs when it replaces cow’s milk with plant-based or lactose-free milk in its beverages,” adding that it “does not appear frivolous or manifestly unfounded to argue that it is disproportionate to charge the consumer more than six times what it costs the merchant” and that such a gap could cause serious harm to consumers (CP24; Vegconomist). The case was originally filed on 30 December 2024 by law firm LPC Avocats, which acts for plaintiff and Montreal resident Liel Ohayon (LPC Avocats).
According to CP24 and LPC Avocats, the authorized class includes all Quebec consumers who paid a premium for non-dairy milk at Starbucks between 30 December 2021 and 7 November 2024, at Second Cup between 30 December 2021 and 27 February 2025, and at Tim Hortons between 30 December 2021 and 2 January 2025. CP24 and Vegconomist report that Ohayon paid $6.80 for a matcha latte with soy or oat milk, compared with $6.00 for the same drink made with cow’s milk.
LPC Avocats characterizes the disputed surcharges as “price gouging,” stating on its website that “for years, Starbucks, Second Cup and Tim Hortons have been price gouging consumers who requested non-dairy substitutes in their beverages, either because of medical reasons (such as lactose intolerance), or other health, personal, social or environmental reasons” (Chronicle; LPC Avocats). The firm notes that approximately 44% of Canadians are lactose intolerant and about 5% are vegan (LPC Avocats).
Speaking after the authorization ruling, LPC Avocats attorney Joey Zukran told CP24, “I think it’s unfair, I think it’s egregious, and that’s why we wanted to hold them accountable.” Zukran added that while each surcharge might not seem large on its own, “when you take the total sales figures on an aggregate basis for all coffees or beverages sold across Quebec, for which a non-dairy substitute was added at a cost of 80 cents per item, well, that could be an amount in the millions of dollars, potentially” (CP24).
Starbucks, however, disputes a key element of the judge’s reasoning. A Starbucks spokesperson told the Chronicle that “Starbucks made no admission of the cost of dairy milk or dairy alternatives. This was a court error as there was no evidence before the court establishing cost. Starbucks will be seeking a correction by the court of this error in the court’s judgment.” Justice Martel’s judgment also rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to rely on a Dalhousie University study comparing dairy and non-dairy retail prices, noting that the retail price of cow’s milk is regulated in Quebec while plant-based milks are not (Chronicle).
The case unfolds against a backdrop of changing pricing policies for non-dairy options. CP24 and GreenQueen report that Starbucks stopped charging a separate non-dairy surcharge in November 2024, Tim Hortons removed its premium in January 2025, and Second Cup followed in February 2025. In an earlier investor call discussing the removal of Starbucks’ surcharge, CEO Brian Niccol said that when the company rethinks what it charges for, “everybody is going to walk away feeling a lot better about ultimately their personal beverage that they’ve created” (GreenQueen).
LPC Avocats states that plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to permanently prohibit Second Cup and Tim Hortons from reinstating non-dairy surcharges, reimbursement of all or part of past surcharges paid by class members, and punitive damages (LPC Avocats; CP24). According to Alphai, the authorization decision is procedural and allows the dispute to move to a full trial on the merits in Quebec Superior Court, with no trial date yet announced.
