Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jan. 01, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings In 2010 and 2011, an organization named Council for Education and Research on Toxics (“Plaintiff”) filed lawsuits in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company and other companies who manufacture, package, distribute or sell brewed coffee. The suits were later consolidated into a single action. Plaintiff alleged that the Company and the other defendants failed to provide warnings for their coffee products of exposure to the chemical acrylamide as required under California Health and Safety Code section 25249.5, the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65. Plaintiff sought equitable relief, including providing warnings to consumers of coffee products, as well as civil penalties in the amount of the statutory maximum of two thousand five hundred dollars per day per alleged violation of Proposition 65, which the Plaintiff claimed was every day coffee is sold without a compliant warning. The Company denied the claims. During the pendency of the litigation, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) proposed a new regulation clarifying that cancer warnings are not required for coffee under Proposition 65. The regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law and became effective on October 1, 2019. In 2020, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that the coffee exemption regulation is a complete defense to the Plaintiff’s complaint. On October 26, 2022, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case. The Plaintiff’s subsequent request for a rehearing before the California Court of Appeals was denied. On December 2, 2022 Plaintiff filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court and Starbucks filed a response brief on December 22, 2022. Starbucks believes that the likelihood that the Company will ultimately incur a material loss in connection with this litigation is less than reasonably possible. Accordingly, as of January 1, 2023, no loss contingency has been recorded for this matter. Starbucks is involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including certain employment litigation cases that have been certified as class or collective actions, but, except as noted above, is not currently a party to any legal proceeding that management believes could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Jan. 01, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

In 2010 and 2011, an organization named Council for Education and Research on Toxics (“Plaintiff”) filed lawsuits in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company and other companies who manufacture, package, distribute or sell brewed coffee. The suits were later consolidated into a single action. Plaintiff alleged that the Company and the other defendants failed to provide warnings for their coffee products of exposure to the chemical acrylamide as required under California Health and Safety Code section 25249.5, the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65. Plaintiff sought equitable relief, including providing warnings to consumers of coffee products, as well as civil penalties in the amount of the statutory maximum of two thousand five hundred dollars per day per alleged violation of Proposition 65, which the Plaintiff claimed was every day coffee is sold without a compliant warning. The Company denied the claims.

During the pendency of the litigation, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) proposed a new regulation clarifying that cancer warnings are not required for coffee under Proposition 65. The regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law and became effective on October 1, 2019. In 2020, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that the coffee exemption regulation is a complete defense to the Plaintiff’s complaint. On October 26, 2022, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case. The Plaintiff’s subsequent request for a rehearing before the California Court of Appeals was denied. On December 2, 2022 Plaintiff filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court and Starbucks filed a response brief on December 22, 2022. Starbucks believes that the likelihood that the Company will ultimately incur a material loss in connection with this litigation is less than reasonably possible. Accordingly, as of January 1, 2023, no loss contingency has been recorded for this matter.

Starbucks is involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including certain employment litigation cases that have been certified as class or collective actions, but, except as noted above, is not currently a party to any legal proceeding that management believes could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.