Coffee retailer accuses Starbucks of having an "insatiable and unchecked ambition"
Penny Stafford, owner of Belvi Coffee and Tea Exchange, says she was locked out of the best office space in Bellevue and Seattle by Starbucks' exclusive leasing agreements with landlords. She finally rented space to sell espresso inside a deli, but says her customers were inundated with free samples from Starbucks employees who worked nearby. She's put out a press release announcing her lawsuit. (Read the story at seattletimes.com | Earlier post about Stafford's complaint)
What I'm unclear on is whether or not the Starbucks sample bearers actually entered the premises of her establishment, bearing samples. If so, then she has a case--but perhaps not in the way it's currently being stated.
Starbucks has been guilty of bad taste in its actions, but that's not prosecutable. :)
Posted by: HopkinsBella | September 26, 2006 at 06:14 AM
Yeah, I'm not sure that having "insatiable and unchecked ambition" is anything illegal.
Posted by: J | September 26, 2006 at 06:26 AM
"It is clear to us that Starbucks' game plan is to completely dominate a market by forcing out competition, something they've done quite well in the Seattle area," Berman added. "We also believe that this scorched-earth approach is happening in many other major markets across the U.S." Berman, Stafford's lawyer: Seattle Times
Did mention there are around 180 independant coffee shops listed in the phonebook for the Seattle metro area? That's not counting street vendors, etc.
Posted by: Deusx | September 26, 2006 at 06:34 AM
"That's not counting street vendors, etc."
Where are there street vendors in the Seattle metro? And no, there aren't 180 shops. More like 80.
Posted by: | September 26, 2006 at 07:56 AM
Is the MSN Money article still a live link? It has more info than the PI. I can post the whole article if it's dead.
Posted by: wsdave | September 26, 2006 at 09:54 AM
What thread was that in Dave? I can't find our posts.
Posted by: Deusx | September 26, 2006 at 09:58 AM
Try this. Tell me if it doesn't work. I have a copy and will post the article.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.asp?Feed=PR&Date=20060925&ID=6050590&Symbol=US:SBUX
Posted by: wsdave | September 26, 2006 at 10:12 AM
dave, it works for me.
Posted by: Becca | September 26, 2006 at 10:29 AM
This woman's nuts....She wants to start her own espresso company in the hometown of the world's largest espresso corporation? Then she complains about all the Starbucks she works near. It's comparable to a homeowner moving in next to the airport and then complaining about all the noise.
Posted by: STLShift | September 26, 2006 at 10:45 AM
I wonder if the whole thing is a set-up just to be able file a lawsuit (much more lucrative than selling bad coffee).
Posted by: wsdave | September 26, 2006 at 11:01 AM
She's complaining about a company paying rent at a place like a strip mall and securing a non-compete clause. That happens all the time. Other coffee companies do the same. The only place you generally don't get those is in a indoor malls.
Posted by: | September 26, 2006 at 11:21 AM
Whiner, at a Mall here we have a SBUX kiosk across from a Gloria Jeans Beans and a Panera the next floor up. You can see all 3 at once standing at the kiosk. Each store offers something different and appeals to its own type of customer, no one has a taste quite like SBUX and not everyone likes it. Seems to me Belvi Coffee and Tea Exchange didn't offer anything people wanted.
Posted by: RjD | September 26, 2006 at 01:03 PM
Wow...bitter much.
Maybe the customers didn't agree with your quality?
Posted by: coffeeguy | September 26, 2006 at 07:09 PM
"Maybe the customers didn't agree with your quality?"
Seriously.
And I seriously doubt that there was any malicious sampling.
Welcome to the Litigious States of America.
Posted by: | September 26, 2006 at 07:45 PM
I just love the phrase "malicious sampling."
I can see me now, tray of pumpkin spice in my hand, "bwa ha ha ha, I'm evil, and doing this to be evil and further my evil intent and plans!"
The company is smart enough not to do anything unlawful. And clauses written into leases are NOTHING new. Maybe she should just do what Shultzie did and offer to buy the company and radically change it (of course she'd have to have dynamic business strategies, vision, and live with being in debt for a while).
Look, business is business and just because it's JUST starting to make news for some of these things does not mean their new. Try business practices at the turn of the century (20th, not 21st). Perhaps we should just change the laws instead of punish companies.
Posted by: Lauren | September 26, 2006 at 11:06 PM
That ambition is what causes progress, better products w/ lower cost, and happier customers.
Chris
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Chris Meisenzahl | September 27, 2006 at 03:45 AM
You are all being paid by Starbucks!!!!
AHHHHHHHHH!
Posted by: Deusx | September 27, 2006 at 05:06 AM
That press release is bizarre, histrionic and somewhat embarassing.
"Starbucks frequently offers to make lease payments higher than fair market value in exchange for a property owner's agreement to prevent competitors from leasing space in the same building..."
Oh no, they demand to be the sole cafe in a building and make it worth the landlord's while! Those fiends!
The exclusivity clause in lease agreements is hardly a Starbucks invention. I'll bet the courthouse cafeteria wherever this case is heard has a similar clause in their lease.
"they continually sent employees loaded with free drink samples to stand in front of my shop"
I call BS on this claim and can't wait for her to go more in-depth on this. I want to know where she's defining "in front of my shop" because if Starbucks didn't have a leased presence on the property, then they were trespassing. I don't think even Starbucks is stupid enough to do that.
"Starbucks uses its huge financial power to purchase other independent providers in an effort to squash any presence of independent coffee purveyors."
This isn't the best quote, but the hysteria in the paragraphs surrounding it honestly made it hard to choose a good sample.
I'm sure it will come as a great shock to Seattle cafes like Victrola, Pegasus, Fremont Coffee, Online Coffee, Cherry Street and so forth that they're being squeezed out of the market by Starbucks. Sort of odd that all these places have diehard customer bases and this person couldn't cultivate the same. Wonder why?
Perhaps Penny Stafford didn't do proper research into opening a foodservice business, lost a lot of money and just wants a scapegoat? Wouldn't be the first time an amateur got in over their heads in this kind of enterprise.
Posted by: a cunning stunt | September 27, 2006 at 10:03 PM
I hate starbucks coffee.. their specialty coffees are a dietitian's nightmare, their regular coffee must have chemical additives and the beans are hyper-over-roasted. everything costs $5. what trash
Posted by: russell | March 21, 2007 at 11:38 AM
no I am not paid by sbux just go there as matter of good choice
Posted by: sbuxfan | September 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM