Have any large coffee companies been subject to state-level enforcement (e.g., Proposition 65 in California) rather than USDA actions?

1. A big coffee case started in state court — not with USDA regulators

The triggering enforcement action at the center of this dispute was a Proposition 65 campaign brought by the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) against Starbucks and roughly 90 other roasters, distributors and retailers alleging failure to warn Californians about acrylamide in coffee — a suit squarely in California’s state‑law regime rather than a federal USDA enforcement proceeding ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Proposition 65 allows private parties to serve notice and sue for civil penalties and has been the vehicle used against “dozens” of coffee defendants rather than an agricultural‑market regulator such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture ^{[7] [8]}.

2. How Prop 65 works here: private enforcers, big penalties, and strategic settlement risk

Prop 65 enforcement is dominated by private enforcers who can seek penalties of up to $2,500 per day per violation after a 60‑day notice, creating high exposure for consumer goods sold in California; that statutory structure, not USDA rulemaking or inspection authority, shaped the risk faced by coffee companies named in the CERT actions ^{[4] [8]}. The threat of large per‑sale or per‑exposure penalties — and the practice of plaintiffs’ firms bringing repeat notices — is repeatedly cited by industry counsel as the principal enforcement pressure on coffee brands ^{[9] [10]}.

3. Regulators and courts shifted the battlefield toward exemptions and constitutional challenge

Facing widespread litigation, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted a regulation in 2019 exempting coffee exposures from Prop 65 warnings for chemicals created by and inherent in roasting or brewing, a rule that defendants have used as an affirmative defense and that state and appellate courts have scrutinized in subsequent rulings ^{[4] [10] [11]}. Industry and federal agencies such as the FDA publicly questioned the value of a cancer warning for coffee, and courts have at times curtailed or remanded aspects of Prop 65 acrylamide enforcement, producing a series of rulings that provided relief to the coffee defendants ^{[10] [6] [5]}. More recently, a federal district court found Prop 65 warning requirements for dietary acrylamide impermissible under the First Amendment in a separate challenge, an outcome that promises broad relief for food producers but is distinct from USDA action ^[12].

4. The controversy remains contested — science, policy, and litigation intersect

Plaintiffs like CERT have continued to press that acrylamide warrants warnings, and parties have litigated over whether OEHHA followed proper process in adopting the coffee exemption; appellate opinions, trial rulings and regulatory rule‑making have been exchanged over a decade, so the conflict is best understood as an extended state‑law enforcement and regulatory fight rather than an agricultural enforcement campaign by USDA ^{[1] [13] [11]}. Reporting shows industry leverage from OEHHA’s exemption and court rulings, but also notes ongoing suits and appeals — demonstrating that state‑level enforcement under Prop 65 has been the central pressure point on large coffee companies, even as regulatory and judicial developments have reduced prospective liability ^{[5] [11] [6]}.

5. Limits of the public record and what it does not say

The assembled sources document extensive Prop 65 litigation against Starbucks and many other large coffee firms and a regulatory response from OEHHA, but they do not provide evidence that USDA has enforced these same acrylamide or warning issues against those companies; absence of USDA‑enforcement reporting in the reviewed material means no definitive claim can be made here about USDA activity beyond what these sources cover ^{[1] [4] [12]}.