Title: Starbucks Refuses Marines
Headings: Did Starbucks Refuse Free Product to Marines Serving in Iraq?
Did Starbucks Refuse Free Product to Marines Serving in Iraq?
A rumor that Starbucks refused free product to Marines serving in Iraq, saying the company didn't support the war or anyone taking part in it, is both old and false.
Claim
Rating
Origin
False Rumor: Oscar Mayer doesn’t support the troops.
Then what is that internet statement and how did it get started?
Keep Snopes Debunking
Editors' Picks
What Is Critical Race Theory and Why Are Some People So Mad at It? We talked to experts who have the answers.
Under HIPAA Rules, Can Businesses Ask If You Have Been Vaccinated Against COVID-19? Where does HIPAA's privacy rule apply?

Content: Many of them have elected to send their weekly mark-out to members of the military or military families, and related organizations. The claim that Starbucks would ever have said “they don’t support the War and anyone in it” is false, in light of what various news accounts show us about the coffee retailer’s attitude towards those who serve in the armed forces. In addition to what Starbucks themselves say of their beneficences to soldiers, we know from different newspaper articles of other instances of glad-hearted support. In July 2004, a Starbucks in Cincinnati was reported to have been practically overflowing with people making yellow ribbons in support of Keith “Matt” Maupin, a soldier whose fate was then uncertain (it has subsequently been reported that his remains have been found and positively identified), along with red, white, and blue ones to show support for American troops in Iraq. In June 2004 in Cleveland, when the mother of one serviceman called her local Starbucks to arrange for the shipping of some java to her son, the employees at that store insisted on paying for 30 pounds of coffee as their gift. As to another of the claims made in the e-mail, while it is true someone working at a New York City Starbucks did indeed charge ambulance workers $130 for three cases of water on September 11, 2001, it would not be quite fair to say Starbucks did this. However, act of a single, misguided employee or not, the corporation alone bears responsibility for afterwards spurning a number of opportunities to offer the rescue workers their money back or apologize to them — though the coffee giant finally took both those actions, they did so only after the story attracted online and print media attention. In addition to the “rescue workers charged for water” and the “spurned servicemen” story that is the focus of this piece, Starbucks has been the butt of a number of other unsavory rumors and mistaken beliefs just in the past few years, including: A 2002 poster promoting two new iced drinks prompted some consumers to see in it reminders of the hijacked planes hitting the twin towers. In 2001, a false story spread in e-mail about the wife of the owner of a Thailand Starbucks telling non-white customers the coffee shop was not for Asians.