It was not immediately obvious to everyone about the importance of the telephone.

The British Postmaster General stated that the telephone was an invention of no significance in the last few years of the 19th century.

This demonstrates that not everyone trusted or saw the value in the telephone when it was invented.

In fact, an internal memo from Western Union in 1876 stated that the device was inherently of no value.

This shows that even companies who were leaders in communication technology at the time did not initially trust or see the potential of the telephone.


When the telephone was first invented, its acceptance and trust by people varied.

The invention of the telephone goes back to the 1880's and is widely attributed to Alexander Graham Bell, although there were developments since the 1660's with no clear inventor.

Initially, phones were called Mechanical Acoustic Devices and only transmitted voice data instead of audio.

The first known conversation on the telephone was between Alexander Graham Bell and his assistant in 1876.

However, it took some time for people to fully trust and understand this new technology.

At first, users would speak into a telephone and listen using the same opening, as there was only one wire for receiving and transmitting voice.

Soon after, operators were required to assist with connecting calls, with women becoming the majority of staff in telephone exchange jobs due to young men enjoying pranks too often and causing lines not to be connected successfully.

Despite Alexander Graham Bell being credited with the invention of the telephone in the USA, Canada, and Scotland, there have been debates about its true inventor, including Antonio Meucci and Elisha Gray.

Lawsuits were filed, but the Bell and Edison patents dominated telephone technology and were upheld by court decisions in the United States.

In summary, while people may have been intrigued by the new invention of the telephone when it was first introduced, trust and widespread acceptance took some time due to its novelty and the limitations in technology during that period.


The telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell, who received the first US patent for it in 1876.

However, there were other inventors like Antonio Meucci, Johann Philipp Reis, Elisha Gray, and Thomas Edison who contributed to the development of this technology around the same time.

Bell's invention was significant because he patented a practical version that could transmit voice over long distances, which became the foundation for modern telephone systems.

At the beginning, the telephone was an expensive device that only the wealthy could afford.

But Bell wanted to make it accessible to everyone and reduce the expense of materials so that even the poorest man couldn't afford to be without one.

Over time, the promotion of the telephone as a tool for increasing wealth, employment, and improving communication led to its widespread adoption and integration into daily life.

The invention of the telephone had significant social and economic impacts.

It led to the development of city centers, office buildings, and an urban worker society.

The telephone also changed the pace of business, made the world smaller and more accessible, provided security in emergency situations, and both promoted and combatted crime.

By the year 2000, more than a billion people worldwide had gone wireless using cellular technology to talk, deliver text and photos on lightweight telephones.

Today, VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) providers have revolutionized international and business communication.

In conclusion, while Alexander Graham Bell is generally credited with inventing the telephone, it was the culmination of research done by many individuals, including Antonio Meucci, Johann Philipp Reis, Innocenzo Manzetti, and Elisha Gray.

Bell's invention stood out because he patented a practical version that could transmit voice over long distances, making it the foundation for modern telephone systems.

The adoption of the telephone brought about significant social and economic changes in communication methods and daily life.


When the telephone was invented in 1876, it was initially quite unpopular and did not generate as much excitement as the telegraph had a few decades earlier.

Many viewed the telephone with suspicion, believing it to be an invention of the devil, and some rural folks feared it was magical, thinking telephone wires would attract lightning or evil spirits.

In Ethiopia, clergymen appealed to Emperor Menelik to remove the telephone from the palace, claiming it was the work of the devil.

Initially, the telephone was considered a luxury item, affordable only by the wealthy, but it eventually became a common household item.

The telephone was met with resistance and technical problems at first, but over time it became widely accepted and essential for communication.


When the telephone was first introduced, it was met with some resistance and a few technical problems.

Despite the initial skepticism, the telephone quickly became accepted, and almost everyone in the western world had a telephone.

The telephone enabled people to communicate over long distances without seeing each other, which made their lives much easier, especially for those living far from their families and loved ones.

The telephone was initially considered a novelty item shown to kings and queens, but it eventually became a common possession, even among the homeless.

By 1900, the telephone was already present in some private households, indicating its growing acceptance.

The adoption of the telephone was rapid, with the White House having the first household telephone and the first city-wide telephone system being established in Deadwood, South Dakota.

The Bell Telephone Company, founded by Alexander Graham Bell in 1877, played a significant role in building a nationwide telephone system, further promoting its acceptance.

By 1881, there were 132,700 Bell telephones in homes, and by 1930, the number had grown to 15,193,000, showing widespread trust and reliance on the technology.


When the telephone was first invented, it faced significant skepticism and distrust.

Many people considered the telephone a mere novelty rather than a serious innovation.

They regarded it as a fake or a toy, useful perhaps for the wealthy or for entertainment, but not as a necessary tool for communication.

Despite the initial reluctance, the telephone demonstrated remarkable utility and convenience in facilitating communication across distances, which significantly contributed to its gradual acceptance.

The initial commercial telephone services began in 1878 and 1879, but it took time for society to recognize the telephone’s transformative potential.

Early adoption was hindered by doubts about its practicality and effectiveness.

Nevertheless, as the technology improved and reliability increased, perceptions began to shift.

Business communications, in particular, were revolutionized by the telephone, which allowed far more efficient and immediate interactions than previous methods, such as the telegraph.

The telephone facilitated faster decision-making and responsiveness, which eventually led businesses and individual users alike to appreciate its value.

By the early 1900s, phones were becoming more widespread, and people started to see them as a necessity.

The increasing ubiquity of telephones and the evident benefits they offered in everyday communication helped cement their role in society.

This shift was gradual and marked by a growing recognition of the telephone’s indispensable role in enhancing personal and business communication.

In conclusion, while people were initially skeptical and distrustful of the telephone when it was invented, its undeniable benefits in communication eventually led to widespread acceptance and reliance on this revolutionary technology.

The transition from skepticism to acceptance reflects a broader pattern of technological adoption, where practical utility overcomes initial distrust.


the telephone was initially met with suspicion and viewed with distrust by many people when it was first introduced, with some fearing it was magical or an instrument of the devil.


The telephone changed the movement of people by allowing them to communicate with others over long distances, which enabled people to stay connected with family and friends who were far away. This changed the way people lived, as they could now easily stay in touch with loved ones who were no longer physically nearby.

The telephone also changed the way people did things by allowing them to conduct business and communicate with others in a more efficient and timely manner. It enabled people to work remotely and stay connected with colleagues and clients, which changed the way people worked and lived.

The telephone has changed over time, with advancements in technology leading to the development of new features and capabilities. The first telephone was invented in 1876 by Alexander Graham Bell, and since then, the technology has evolved to include features such as answering machines, call waiting, and voicemail.

People did not initially trust the telephone when it was first invented. In fact, many people were skeptical of the new technology and did not see the need for it. However, as the technology improved and more people began to use it, trust in the telephone grew, and it became an essential part of daily life.


People are boycotting Starbucks for various reasons.

One reason is the company's stance on political and social issues, such as its support for same-sex marriage and hiring refugees.

Another reason is the perception that Starbucks engages in virtue signalling, such as its response to the bathroom incident and its donations to political parties.

Additionally, some boycotts are driven by the company's use of non-organic milk and its stance on GMO labeling laws.


People are boycotting Starbucks for a variety of reasons, which can be broadly categorized into political, ethical, and environmental concerns.

1. **Political Stances and Actions**:

Starbucks has faced boycotts due to its political stances and actions.

For instance, in 2015, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump suggested boycotting Starbucks because the company removed "Merry Christmas" from its holiday cups, which he and others saw as an example of political correctness.

Additionally, Starbucks' promise to hire 10,000 refugees was perceived by some conservatives as favoring refugees over native citizens who also need jobs, leading to calls for a boycott.

2. **Support for Same-Sex Marriage**:

Starbucks' support for same-sex marriage has also led to boycotts.

Anti-gay marriage groups, such as the National Organization for Marriage, initiated "Dump Starbucks" boycotts in response to the company's stance.

At a shareholders' meeting in 2013, a shareholder suggested that the company's financial performance had been harmed by its support for same-sex marriage and the subsequent boycotts.

Ethical

and

Environmental

Concerns**:

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has called for a boycott of Starbucks due to its use of non-organic milk and GMO ingredients.

The OCA has been pressuring Starbucks to switch to organic and GMO-free products, but the company has largely ignored these demands.

Starbucks' involvement with the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which has opposed GMO labeling laws, has also been a point of contention.

Fair

Trade

Practices**:

Starbucks has been criticized for its fair trade practices.

According to the company's own global impact report, only 8.4 percent of its coffee purchases in 2013 were certified fair trade.

Critics argue that Starbucks' in-house "fair" trade standards are weak and do not guarantee fair prices for small farmers . 5.

**Corporate Practices**:

Starbucks has been accused of engaging in corporate practices that are not worker-friendly.

For example, the company has been involved in secretive negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership, a global trade deal that critics argue favors corporate interests over worker rights.

6. **Virtue Signaling**:

Some conservatives accuse Starbucks of virtue signaling, such as its response to an incident where someone was denied access to the bathroom without making a purchase.

The company closed its stores nationwide for mandatory sensitivity training, which some viewed as an overreaction.

These various reasons reflect the complex and multifaceted nature of the boycotts against Starbucks, driven by a combination of political, ethical, and environmental concerns.


People are boycotting Starbucks for several reasons, which span across political, ethical, and social concerns.

Firstly, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has called for a boycott of Starbucks due to its support for the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which has actively worked to defeat GMO labeling initiatives.

The GMA spent millions to defeat initiatives like I-522 in Washington State and Prop 37 in California, which aimed to label GMOs in food products.

Starbucks' continued support for the GMA, which is pushing for federal legislation to preempt state GMO labeling laws, has led the OCA to include Starbucks in its boycott list.

Secondly, Starbucks has been criticized for its lack of commitment to fair trade practices.

Instead, Starbucks has created its own "fair" trade standards, which critics argue are less stringent.

This has led to calls for boycotts from organizations advocating for better treatment of coffee farmers.

Additionally, Starbucks has faced backlash from conservative groups for its perceived political stances.

For example, the company’s decision to hire 10,000 refugees and its support for same-sex marriage have led to boycotts from conservative and anti-gay marriage groups.

These groups argue that Starbucks' actions favor certain political and social agendas over others.

The controversy over Starbucks' holiday cups, which some conservatives saw as an example of political correctness, also sparked calls for boycotts, with figures like Donald Trump encouraging such actions.

Moreover, Starbucks' involvement in social justice issues, such as closing stores for sensitivity training after an incident of racial discrimination, has been labeled as "virtue signaling" by some conservative commentators, further fueling boycott calls.

In summary, the reasons for boycotting Starbucks include its support for anti-GMO labeling efforts, insufficient fair trade practices, political stances on social issues, and actions perceived as politically correct by conservative groups.


People are boycotting Starbucks for several reasons related to the company's social, political, and ethical practices. One of the primary reasons is the company's support for same-sex marriage, which was notably emphasized by CEO Howard Schultz during a 2013 shareholder meeting, where he expressed that supporters of traditional marriage should feel unwelcome at Starbucks. This statement led the National Organization for Marriage to announce a boycott, causing many traditional marriage supporters to feel excluded.

Schultz's further remarks about not seeking the business of those opposing gay marriage contributed to the controversy, although he acknowledged that the boycott did not significantly impact shareholder returns for the company overall.

Additionally, there are concerns regarding Starbucks' commitment to organic and fair-trade practices. Despite making progress in 2007 by discontinuing the use of milk with Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone, the company has faced criticism for not adequately addressing consumer demand for organic and non-GMO products.

Moreover, an indigenous rights group has raised concerns about Starbucks' contracts with Nestle.

Furthermore, Schultz's political comments and donations favoring Democrats have alienated conservative customers, adding to the momentum of the boycott. This situation presents both principled and financially motivated reasons for consumers choosing to boycott Starbucks.


People are boycotting Starbucks for several reasons related to the company's social and political stances, corporate policies, and perceived insensitivity to consumer concerns. Key grievances include Starbucks' support for same-sex marriage, which has upset supporters of traditional marriage, leading to initiatives like the "Dump Starbucks" campaign initiated by the National Organization for Marriage.

CEO Howard Schultz's comments during a shareholder meeting in 2013, suggesting that dissenters should sell their shares, were interpreted as intolerance towards opposing views, thus intensifying the boycotts, particularly after recent Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage.

Additionally, consumers have expressed frustration with Starbucks' corporate practices, including its position on GMO labeling laws and its perceived lack of responsiveness to demands for organic and non-GMO products, which has drawn criticism from the Organic Consumers Association after over 12 years of advocacy.

Schultz's remarks marginalizing supporters of traditional marriage have also elicited backlash and boycott calls from those affected.

Further criticisms concern what some view as virtue signaling through initiatives like hiring refugees and political donations that appear biased.

The boycott has also gained support from an indigenous rights group over Starbucks' contracts with Nestle, expanding the dissenting coalition.

Moreover, controversies surrounding the company's holiday cups and previous calls for boycotts, such as Donald Trump's suggestion during the red cup controversy in 2015, have contributed to consumer discontent.

As a result, many consumers are opting to support alternative businesses, leading to the rise of the hashtag #ItsJustACup on social media.


People are boycotting Starbucks due to its CEO's stance against President Trump's executive order barring immigrants from majority-Muslim countries, which sparked backlash from some customers.

Starbucks has faced boycotts for its perceived political correctness, including its promise to hire refugees and its donations to Democrats, which some conservatives view as favoring liberal agendas.

The Organic Consumers Association has called for a boycott due to Starbucks' support for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which opposes GMO labeling laws.

Starbucks has been criticized for its low percentage of fair trade coffee purchases and for creating its own less stringent 'fair' trade standards.

The company has also been targeted for its non-organic milk usage and for not switching to organic options despite consumer demand.

Starbucks' holiday cup controversies, particularly the absence of 'Merry Christmas' designs, have also fueled calls for boycotts.

Some customers are boycotting Starbucks because they believe the company prioritizes political correctness over customer preferences.


According to the context, people are boycotting Starbucks for several reasons, including:

1. The company's support of liberal causes and politicians, such as hiring 10,000 refugees and donating to Democratic candidates.

2. The company's stance on social issues, such as same-sex marriage and gender identity.

3. The company's use of non-organic, GMO-tainted ingredients in their food and drinks.

4. The company's support of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which has spent millions of dollars to defeat GMO labeling laws.

5. The company's lack of transparency and accountability in their business practices, such as their use of secret negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal.

These are some of the reasons why people are boycotting Starbucks, as mentioned in the article.


Some Starbucks customers threatened to boycott the company after its CEO took a stand against President Trump's executive order barring immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries.

The Organic Consumers Association has been pressuring Starbucks for 12 years to change its policies and practices around organics and fair trade.

In late 2016, alt-right Twitter user Baked Alaska challenged his followers to go to Starbucks and tell the employees that their names are Trump, connecting it to the idea of boycotting the chain.

Starbucks has been criticized for its virtue signaling and for donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats, leading many to call for a boycott.

The Organic Consumers Association is calling for a boycott until Starbucks switches to organic and GMO-free products.

Starbucks remains on the boycott list of the Organic Consumers Association due to its refusal to withdraw support from the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

Starbucks is currently under boycott by an indigenous rights group because of its contracts with Nestle.

Starbucks' offerings include preservatives and GMO ingredients, leading to calls for healthier options and a boycott of their non-organic products.

The Organic Consumers Association has called for a boycott of Starbucks due to its opposition to GMO labeling laws.

Starbucks has been associated with political controversies, prompting questions about whether consumers should boycott them.

Starbucks' contracts with Nestle have led to calls for a boycott from an indigenous rights group.

A conservative backlash led to company criticism and calls for boycotts after Starbucks' initiatives that some perceived as examples of political correctness.

Starbucks has been criticized for its low fair trade coffee certification, leading to boycotts by fair trade advocates.

Various groups have called for a boycott due to Starbucks' support of liberal causes and political contributions.

Consumer outrage has led to discussions about boycotting Starbucks over its environmental and trade practices.

Boycotting Starbucks is easy according to critics who oppose its corporate policies.

Many consumers have boycotted Starbucks due to its corporate policies perceived as harmful to local businesses.

The perception of Starbucks as a supporter of GMO practices has motivated consumer boycotts.

Some argue that boycotting Starbucks is a form of political statement against its corporate involvement in social issues.


People are boycotting Starbucks due to its CEO's opposition to President Trump's executive order on immigration, as well as past campaigns initiated by Trump and his supporters against the company, particularly surrounding its perceived liberal values and treatment of customers asking for names like "Trump" on cups.

People are boycotting Starbucks due to its lack of commitment to organic and fair trade practices, despite ongoing pressure from consumers and organizations like the Organic Consumers Association for over 12 years.

People are boycotting Starbucks due to a challenge from alt-right user Baked Alaska encouraging followers to provoke baristas by asking for "Trump" on cups, as well as Donald Trump's suggestion to boycott the chain during his campaign.

People are boycotting Starbucks due to its perceived virtue signaling, such as hiring refugees over native job seekers, closing stores for a nationwide sensitivity training after an incident involving bathroom access, and overwhelmingly donating to Democratic candidates during elections. Critics argue that there are better and cheaper coffee alternatives, making the boycott an easier choice.

People are boycotting Starbucks primarily due to the company's lack of commitment to organic and fair trade practices, despite pressure from organizations like the Organic Consumers Association. Consumers demand more options for organic, non-GMO drinks and snacks, and the ongoing boycott reflects dissatisfaction with Starbucks' policies and practices regarding these issues.

People are boycotting Starbucks due to its continued support for the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is opposing state GMO labeling laws, and for failing the Fair Trade standards, with only 8.4% of its coffee purchases being certified fair trade.

People are boycotting Starbucks primarily because the company uses non-organic milk from factory farms and has not switched to organic milk, despite pressure from organizations like the OCA and GMO Inside. They argue that if Starbucks adopted organic milk, it could significantly influence the market and encourage other coffee chains to do the same.

People are boycotting Starbucks primarily due to a call from the Organic Consumers Association against the company's attempts to overturn GMO labeling laws and also due to an indigenous rights group's objections related to its contracts with Nestle.


Some Starbucks customers threatened to boycott the coffee giant after its CEO took a stand against President Donald Trump's executive order barring immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US.

Trump, who had previously encouraged boycotting Starbucks while campaigning, citing the company's decision to no longer use the phrase 'Merry Christmas' on its cups, now found himself on the receiving end of a boycott threat from some of the coffee giant's customers.

Note: These sentences, for instance, highlight the instance where Donald Trump encouraged boycotting Starbucks while campaigning, citing the company's decision to no longer use the phrase Merry Christmas on its cups.

Starbucks, the largest coffee chain in the world with 20,100 stores and annual sales of $14.9 billion, has been the subject of boycotts due to political reasons.

The Organic Consumers Association has been pressuring Starbucks, the largest coffee chain in the world, for 12 years to change its policies and practices around organics and fair trade.

Note: These sentences provide relevant information about Starbucks, the company that has been the target of the Organic Consumers Association's pressure for 12 years, and the reasons why people might boycott it, which aligns with the query.

In late 2016, Baked Alaska, an alt-right Twitter user with 123,000 followers, challenged his audience to go to Starbucks and tell the employees that their names are Trump.

Donald Trump, who had previously encouraged boycotting Starbucks while campaigning in late 2015, was likely the inspiration behind Baked Alaska's challenge to his followers.

Note: These sentences, specifically Donald Trump's encouragement of boycotting Starbucks, provide information on the reasons behind the boycott.

Starbucks has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates, favoring them in donations by 94% in the 2016 election, which has contributed to the widespread perception that the company is biased towards one political party.

Starbucks, which has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats, favoring them in donations by 94% in the 2016 election, engaged in mass virtue signalling after an incident where someone was denied access to the bathroom after not buying anything, closing its stores nationwide and enforcing mandatory sensitivity training on its employees.

However, despite this public display of social responsibility, there are no other relevant sentences in the provided document that directly address the query.


In late 2015, Trump, who was campaigning for president at the time, encouraged boycotting the chain.

As he campaigned, these instances of boycotting Starbucks due to political reasons were relevant to his encouragement of boycotting the chain in late 2015.

Donald Trump, who had been campaigning against Starbucks in late 2015, encouraged boycotting the coffee chain.

Given his encouragement of boycotting Starbucks, these sentences provide information on the reasons behind the boycott that people are citing.

Starbucks has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates, favoring them in donations by 94% in the 2016 election, which has contributed to the widespread perception that the company has a political bias.

However, the company's subsequent actions, including closing its stores nationwide and enforcing mandatory sensitivity training on its employees, are not directly addressed in the provided document.

The Organic Consumers Association has been pressuring Starbucks, the company, for 12 years to change its policies and practices around organics and fair trade.


People are boycotting Starbucks for various reasons, including the company's support for same-sex marriage, which led to a boycott by anti-gay marriage groups such as the National Organization for Marriage.

Additionally, some conservatives are boycotting Starbucks due to its perceived liberal bias and support for Democrats, with the company donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats in the 2016 election.

Others are boycotting the company due to its environmental and social policies, such as its use of non-organic milk and GMO-tainted foods.

Some individuals are also boycotting Starbucks due to its business practices, such as its impact on local coffee shops and its contracts with companies like Nestle.

Furthermore, some people are boycotting Starbucks due to its CEO's comments on traditional marriage, with some shareholders expressing disappointment with the company's financial performance after the boycott was announced.

The company's support for the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and its efforts to overturn GMO labeling laws have also led to boycotts.


People are boycotting Starbucks for a variety of reasons, which can be broadly categorized into political, ethical, and social concerns.

Firstly, political reasons play a significant role.

Starbucks has been criticized for its perceived political stances, such as its support for same-sex marriage, which led to boycotts by anti-gay marriage groups like the National Organization for Marriage.

Additionally, the company's decision to hire 10,000 refugees was seen by some conservatives as favoring refugees over native citizens, prompting further boycotts.

Starbucks' donations to Democratic candidates and causes have also been a point of contention, with the company favoring Democrats by 94% in the 2016 election.

Ethical concerns also contribute to the boycotts.

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has been pressuring Starbucks to adopt more organic and non-GMO products.

Despite some victories, such as the discontinuation of milk containing Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone in 2007, Starbucks has largely ignored these demands, leading to ongoing boycotts.

The company's support for the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which opposes GMO labeling laws, has further fueled these boycotts.

Social issues are another significant factor.

Starbucks has been accused of "virtue signaling" through actions like closing stores for sensitivity training after a racial incident and promoting diversity and inclusion, which some conservatives view as excessive political correctness.

The company's holiday cups, which were intended to promote inclusivity, also sparked backlash from conservatives who saw it as an attack on traditional Christmas values.

In summary, the boycotts against Starbucks are driven by a combination of political disagreements, ethical concerns regarding their product sourcing and corporate practices, and social issues related to the company's stance on diversity and inclusion.

These multifaceted reasons reflect the complex nature of consumer activism in today's society.


Some Starbucks customers threatened to boycott the coffee giant after its CEO took a stand against President Donald Trump's executive order barring immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US.

Starbucks has been criticized for its use of non-organic milk and GMO ingredients, leading the Organic Consumers Association to call for a boycott due to the company's failure to switch to organic and GMO-free products.

The company has also faced backlash for its support of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which has spent millions to defeat GMO labeling laws, prompting further calls for a boycott.

Conservatives have boycotted Starbucks for its perceived 'virtue signaling,' such as its promise to hire 10,000 refugees and its donations to Democratic candidates.

Starbucks' decision to remove 'Merry Christmas' from its holiday cups in favor of a more inclusive design led to calls for a boycott from some conservative groups.

The company's involvement in secretive negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership has also been a point of contention, with critics arguing that Starbucks prioritizes corporate-friendly conditions over worker-friendly policies.

Starbucks' support for same-sex marriage has led to boycotts from anti-gay marriage groups, who argue that the company's stance has negatively impacted its financial performance.


People are boycotting Starbucks for several reasons.

One reason for the boycott is related to the company's contracts with Nestle, which have drawn criticism from indigenous rights groups.

Additionally, the Organic Consumers Association has been pressuring Starbucks to adopt better practices surrounding organic and non-GMO products.

Past political stances taken by Starbucks, such as their response to President Trump's immigration policies, have also led to threats of boycotting from some customer groups.

Starbucks has faced backlash over its perceived anti-Trump agenda, with some notable instances of customers vowing to boycott the chain.

Furthermore, the company has drawn criticism for its environmental practices and claims regarding being environmentally friendly.

Many customers express dissatisfaction about the impact Starbucks has on local coffee shops, claiming it contributes to their closures.

Starbucks's response to various social and political issues has polarized public opinion, leading to both support and calls for boycotting.


People are boycotting Starbucks for various reasons, as highlighted in the documents and discussions:

1.

**Political Stances**: In February 2017, the CEO, Howard Schultz, announced that Starbucks would be hiring refugees, which led to backlash from some consumers who were not supportive of this decision.

**Product Controversies**:
   - **GMO Labeling**: In 2019, an organization called the Organic Consumers Association called for a boycott due to Starbucks' efforts to overturn GMO labeling laws.

- **Pumpkin Spice Latte**: In 2015, a food blogger criticized the Pumpkin Spice Latte for not containing actual pumpkin, which sparked some consumer backlash.

**Political Figures' Influence**:
   - **Donald Trump**: In late 2015, Trump encouraged boycotting the chain while campaigning.

- **Baked Alaska**: In late 2016, the alt-right Twitter user Baked Alaska challenged followers to go to Starbucks and ask baristas to write "Trump" on cups, aiming to "trigger" social justice warrior employees.

**Social Media Backlash**: After the refugee hiring announcement in January 2017, the hashtag #BoycottStarbucks became the highest trending topic on Twitter.

**Corporate Policies**:
   - **Refusal to Donate Coffee**: An instance where Starbucks refused to donate coffee to US Marines in Iraq, as they did not support the Iraq war, also led to a call for a boycott.

**Corporate Involvement in Issues of Morality and Religion**: Some consumers and activists may boycott Starbucks due to perceived involvement in issues of morality and religion, which they find problematic or in opposition to their personal beliefs.

The documents and discussions suggest that boycotts often stem from strong feelings about a company's actions, particularly when they align with personal values or beliefs.


Several boycotts have been organized against Starbucks over the years for various reasons, often related to social, political, and ethical concerns.

A major factor has been accusations of unfair labor practices, such as resistance to unionization, inadequate wages, and insufficient benefits for workers.

Environmental concerns also play a role, with criticisms of the company's use of unsustainable sourcing practices and excessive plastic waste.

Additionally, Starbucks has faced backlash for its tax practices, with allegations that the company uses complex strategies to minimize tax payments in certain countries.

Another point of contention has been their involvement in political issues; for example, some customers boycotted Starbucks due to positions the company took on controversial social issues, including LGBTQ+ rights and immigration policies.

Incidents in individual locations, such as the arrest of two black men at a Philadelphia Starbucks, have also led to widespread calls for boycotts, highlighting concerns about racial discrimination.

These various factors collectively contribute to why different groups call for boycotts at different times, reflecting broader societal debates and values.


People are boycotting Starbucks for various reasons related to the company's ethical, environmental, and consumer practices.

The Organic Consumers Association has been pressuring Starbucks for several years to change its policies around organics and fair trade, but apart from one instance in 2007 where Starbucks agreed to stop using milk with Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone, the company has largely ignored consumer demand for organic, non-GMO drinks and snacks.

Critics have accused Starbucks of tax avoidance, unethical procurement practices, and violation of fair coffee trade principles, leading to multiple boycott calls.

Consumers have also boycotted Starbucks due to political reasons, such as the company's stance on President Trump's executive order on immigration, and perceived support for Trump from the company's CEO.

Another issue leading to boycott calls is Starbucks' association with Nestle, which has led to objections from an indigenous rights group.

Starbucks continues to support the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which is pushing for a law in Congress to overturn state GMO labeling laws, this has also led to boycott calls.


There are several reasons why people are boycotting Starbucks.

## Support for the LGBTQ+ Community Starbucks has been the target of boycotts instituted by anti-gay marriage groups such as the National Organization for Marriage due to its support for same-sex marriage.

## Political Correctness

In 2015, Starbucks' decision to use holiday cups was met with an angry online backlash from conservatives and others who saw it as an example of political correctness.

Joshua Feuerstein, a conservative Christian activist, urged a boycott in a Facebook video that has been viewed over 17 million times.

## Opposition to Donald Trump

In February 2017, some Starbucks customers threatened to boycott the coffee giant after its CEO took a stand against President Donald Trump's executive order barring immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.

In late 2016, alt-right Twitter user Baked Alaska challenged his 123,000 followers to go to Starbucks and tell employees that their names are Trump to "trigger" progressive employees.

## Lack of Support for Fair Trade and Organic Food

The Organic Consumers Association has been pressuring Starbucks for 12 years to change its policies and practices around organics and fair trade.

Starbucks has largely ignored consumer demand for organic, non-GMO drinks and snacks.

The OCA is joining with GMO Inside to ask Starbucks to switch to organic and GMO-free products.

Support for Refugees

Starbucks has been accused of virtue signalling by promising to hire 10,000 refugees, presumably favoring them over native people who need jobs.

## Support for Democrats Starbucks has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats, favoring them in donations by 94% in the 2016 election.


People are boycotting Starbucks for several reasons, driven by various social, ethical, and political concerns.

One major reason for the boycott is the company's stance on GMO and organic products.

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has been urging Starbucks for over a decade to provide fair trade organic coffee and to eliminate GMO ingredients from their products.

However, despite some minimal compliance, such as discontinuing the use of milk containing Monsanto’s Bovine Growth Hormone in 2007, Starbucks has largely ignored these demands, prompting continued calls for boycotts.

Another reason is Starbucks' apparent involvement in attempts to overturn GMO labeling laws, which has further angered consumers who advocate for transparency and consumers' rights to know about the ingredients in their food.

The company is also criticized for its inadequate commitment to fair trade.

Although Starbucks claims that a significant portion of its coffee purchases meet ethical standards, only a small percentage is genuinely fair trade certified, with the majority conforming to less stringent, in-house CAFÉ (Coffee and Farmer Equity) practices.

Additionally, Starbucks has faced political backlash, notably from conservative groups.

In 2016, for instance, alt-right influencers encouraged followers to boycott the chain by asking baristas to write "Trump" on the cups to provoke "social justice warrior" employees.

Moreover, President Donald Trump himself has previously promoted a boycott, criticizing Starbucks for allegedly ceasing to acknowledge "Merry Christmas" during the holiday season.

Starbucks' political stances have also incited boycotts.

The company opposed President Trump’s executive order barring immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries, leading to threats of boycotts from customers who disagreed with this position.

This was not the first political controversy involving Starbucks, as the company has been embroiled in various political and social issues over the years, constantly attracting both support and opposition.

In summary, people are boycotting Starbucks due to its unsatisfactory responses to demands for organic, non-GMO products, its efforts against GMO labeling laws, inadequate fair trade practices, political stances, and publicized conflicts over ethical and social issues.


People are boycotting Starbucks for a variety of reasons, which can be categorized into political stances, social issues, corporate practices, and specific incidents.

Political Stances and Social Issues

1. **Support for Same-Sex Marriage**:    Starbucks has faced boycotts from conservative groups and individuals who oppose the company's support for same-sex marriage.

The company's CEO, Howard Schultz, has publicly affirmed this support, which has led to backlash from groups like the National Organization for Marriage.

This stance has been a point of contention for many who disagree with the company's position on this social issue.

**Stance Against Trump's Policies**:

Starbucks has taken stands against policies implemented by former President Donald Trump, such as the executive order barring immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries.

This has led to boycotts from Trump supporters and conservative groups . 3. **Hiring Refugees**:

The company's decision to hire 10,000 refugees in response to Trump's immigration policies sparked significant backlash and calls for boycotts from those who felt that the company was prioritizing refugees over American citizens . 4. **

Holiday Cups Controversy**:

Starbucks faced boycotts over its holiday cups, which some conservatives felt were an example of political correctness and a move away from traditional Christmas themes.

This controversy was amplified by figures like Donald Trump [

Corporate Practices and Ethical Concerns

Fair

Trade

and

Organic Products*

The Organic Consumers Association has been pressuring Starbucks to adopt more fair trade and organic practices.

The company's reluctance to fully commit to these demands has led to boycotts from environmental and health-conscious groups.

2. **GMO Labeling Laws**:

Starbucks has been boycotted by groups like the Organic Consumers Association for its attempts to overturn GMO labeling laws, which has raised concerns among consumers about transparency and food safety . 3.

**Tax Practices**:

Starbucks has faced criticism and boycotts over its tax practices, particularly in the UK, where it has been accused of minimizing its tax liability.

This has led to reputational damage and calls for boycotts from those who view the company as not paying its fair share of taxes [

### Specific Incidents  1. **Racial Bias Incident**:    An incident in Philadelphia where two Black men were arrested for not ordering anything while waiting for a business meeting led to widespread boycotts and a reassessment of the company's policies on racial bias [


Political Stances and Social Issues

**Stance Against Trump's Policies**:

Holiday Cups Controversy**:

Fair

Trade

and

Organic Products*

2. **GMO Labeling Laws**:

**Tax Practices**:


People are boycotting Starbucks for several reasons, primarily related to its business practices, political stances, and product sourcing.

One major reason is the company's support for the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which has actively opposed GMO labeling laws, leading to criticism from the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and calls for a boycott.

Starbucks' use of non-organic milk from factory farms and its failure to switch to organic, GMO-free products despite consumer demand also contribute to the boycott.

Additionally, Starbucks has been criticized for its low percentage of fair trade coffee purchases, with only 8.4% of its coffee being certified fair trade in 2013, while the company promotes its own weaker "ethically sourced" standards.

This has led to accusations of misleading consumers about its commitment to fair trade practices.

Political reasons also play a significant role in the boycott.

Starbucks' support for same-sex marriage and its stance against traditional marriage have led to boycotts from conservative groups.

The company's decision to hire 10,000 refugees in response to President Trump's executive order banning immigrants from several Muslim-majority countries sparked backlash and calls for a boycott from some conservative customers.

Furthermore, Starbucks has faced criticism for its involvement in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, which are seen as favoring corporate interests over worker rights.

The company's political donations, predominantly to Democratic candidates, and its perceived "virtue signaling" actions, such as mandatory sensitivity training for employees, have also fueled boycotts from conservative groups.

In summary, the boycott against Starbucks is driven by a combination of its business practices related to GMO labeling and fair trade, its political stances on social issues, and its involvement in controversial trade negotiations.


People are boycotting Starbucks for various reasons, including:

1. Political and social issues: Some customers are boycotting Starbucks due to the company's perceived liberal bias, support for Planned Parenthood, and opposition to traditional marriage.

2. Poor treatment by staff: There have been instances of poor customer service, including a uniformed police officer being refused use of the restroom and a customer being embarrassed by a barista.

3. Lack of fair trade practices: Starbucks has been criticized for its lack of fair trade practices, with only 8.4% of its coffee purchases being certified fair trade.

4. Support for organizations: Some customers are boycotting Starbucks because of the company's support for organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign.

5. Dress code controversy: Starbucks has faced criticism for its dress code policy, which prohibits employees from wearing engagement rings but allows nose rings.

6. Holiday cup controversies: Starbucks has faced backlash for its holiday cup designs, including a design that some customers perceived as promoting a "gay agenda."

7. Treatment of employees: Some customers are boycotting Starbucks due to concerns about the treatment of employees, including allegations of poor working conditions and low wages.


People are boycotting Starbucks for various reasons, including its political stances and business practices.

Some customers threatened to boycott Starbucks after its CEO opposed President Trump's executive order barring immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries.

The Organic Consumers Association has called for a boycott due to Starbucks' attempts to overturn GMO labeling laws and its use of non-organic milk.

Starbucks has also faced boycotts for its support of same-sex marriage and its perceived virtue signaling, such as promising to hire 10,000 refugees.


People are boycotting Starbucks for several reasons relating to issues of political and social justice.

In one instance, customers threatened to boycott after Starbucks' CEO opposed President Trump's immigration policies, which involved barring immigrants from majority-Muslim countries.

Additionally, the company has been accused of virtue signaling and prioritizing political correctness, such as promising to hire 10,000 refugees, which has also sparked calls for boycotts among critics who see these actions as favoring political agendas over business or customer service.


Starbucks continues to face boycotts for several reasons including its reluctance to switch to organic and GMO-free products, despite having stopped using Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone in its milk in 2007 due to customer backlash.

Additionally, the company has been involved in political controversy; some customers called for a boycott after the CEO expressed opposition to Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

Trump and other critics have also boycotted Starbucks over complaints ranging from its holiday cup designs to perceived disparities in the company’s political contributions, with 94% of its political donations during the 2016 election cycle favoring Democrats.

Furthermore, Starbucks' commitment to hire 10,000 refugees, seen by some as prioritizing refugees over native job seekers, has also led to accusations of virtue signaling.


People are boycotting Starbucks due to its perceived political stances, such as its support for diversity and inclusion initiatives, which some conservatives view as political correctness run amok.

Starbucks faced backlash for its holiday cups, which some conservatives felt were an attack on Christmas traditions.

The company has also been criticized for its stance on immigration, particularly its promise to hire 10,000 refugees, which some people saw as prioritizing refugees over native job seekers.

Starbucks has been accused of contributing to gentrification and the closure of local coffee shops, leading to boycotts from those who support small businesses.

The company has faced boycotts due to incidents of racial bias, such as the arrest of two Black men at a Philadelphia store, which led to widespread criticism and calls for boycotts.

Starbucks has been targeted by boycotts for its alleged involvement in overturning GMO labeling laws and its business practices with Nestle, which have been criticized by indigenous rights groups.

There have been false rumors and misinformation, such as claims that Starbucks refused to support U.S. troops, which have fueled boycotts.


People are boycotting Starbucks for various reasons, including the company's stance on social and environmental issues, as well as its business practices.

Some conservatives are boycotting Starbucks due to its support for same-sex marriage and its perceived liberal bias.

In 2013, the company's CEO, Howard Schultz, stated that if a shareholder opposed same-sex marriage, they should sell their shares, leading to a boycott by anti-gay marriage groups.

Additionally, Starbucks has been criticized for its environmental impact, including its use of non-organic milk and its contribution to waste and pollution.

Others are boycotting Starbucks due to its business practices, such as its membership in the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which has been accused of lobbying against GMO labeling laws.

The company has also been criticized for its treatment of coffee farmers, with only 8.4% of its coffee purchases in 2013 being certified fair trade.

Furthermore, Starbucks has been accused of creating its own "fair" trade standards, which are seen as weaker than genuine fair trade standards.

Some people are also boycotting Starbucks due to its response to President Trump's executive order banning immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries, with the company announcing plans to hire 10,000 refugees over five years.

This decision was met with backlash on social media, with some users calling for a boycott of the company.


People are boycotting Starbucks for various reasons, including its stance on social and political issues.

The company faced backlash after CEO Howard Schultz announced plans to hire refugees in response to Donald Trump's executive order banning immigration from several Muslim-majority countries.

This initiative prompted the hashtag #BoycottStarbucks to trend on social media as many consumers expressed their displeasure.

Starbucks has faced boycotts related to accusations of promoting a 'leftist agenda,' particularly with its support for LGBTQ rights and its response to traditional marriage supporters.

In a shareholder meeting, Schultz mentioned that those who oppose the company's progressive policies are free to sell their shares, leading to claims that traditional marriage supporters were not welcome.

Additional reasons for boycotting include criticisms regarding Starbucks' sourcing practices and failure to adopt organic and fair trade policies fully.

The Organic Consumers Association has been leading boycotts against Starbucks due to its alleged neglect of consumer demands for organic and non-GMO products.

Overall, the boycotts reflect broader cultural and political divisions within society, particularly surrounding issues of immigration and LGBTQ rights.


People are boycotting Starbucks due to its perceived lack of support for fair trade and organic practices, despite pressure from the Organic Consumers Association for over a decade.

Starbucks faced backlash for its updated dress code prohibiting employees from wearing engagement rings, which many found absurd.

Some customers boycott Starbucks because they believe it drives local coffee shops out of business.

The company has been criticized for its political stances, including hiring refugees, which led to calls for boycotts from some conservative groups.

Starbucks has also been targeted for its donations to Planned Parenthood, prompting some to stop patronizing the chain.

The hashtag #BoycottStarbucks trended on social media after the company instructed employees not to wear Black Lives Matter attire.

Starbucks has been accused of not supporting U.S. troops during the Iraq War, which fueled boycotts.

The company's perceived liberal bias and political correctness have led to boycotts from conservative groups.

Starbucks has been criticized for its environmental practices, including claims of false advertising regarding its sustainability efforts.


People are boycotting Starbucks due to various reasons, as presented in the provided contexts.

Some individuals, like  "Girl, I will make you some good cinnamon muffins and send them to ya ha-ha see more", believe that the act of boycotting Starbucks is unnecessary and hypocritical, comparing it to other corporations like Chik-Fil-A.

However, others, like [7 years ago] "You and Steam will be back at Starbucks.

You'll forget all about this BS, everyone does.

So all that hype about boycotting the franchise, is stupid.

", argue that boycotting Starbucks is not difficult and has led to the closure of local coffee shops due to aggressive marketing and rent-raising pressures.

On the other hand, some people, like  "And Airbnb is constantly under boycott by anybody who has felt cheated by the company in any way,", boycott Starbucks because of perceived wrongdoings by the company.

For instance, the Organic Consumers Association has called for a boycott of Starbucks because of their efforts to overturn GMO labeling laws .

Additionally, an indigenous rights group has targeted Starbucks due to its contracts with Nestle .

In summary, the reasons for boycotting Starbucks vary, with some people focusing on the company's marketing strategies and others targeting specific actions or affiliations of Starbucks.


1. Starbucks has faced boycotts due to its use of non-organic milk from factory farms with no organic milk being used in their coffee products  3 .
2.

Customers have boycotted Starbucks for serving mostly non-organic and GMO-tainted foods and drinks including preservatives high-fructose corn syrup and chemically derived sugars despite consumer demand for healthier options  3 .
3.

The company's low percentage of fair-trade certified coffee purchases  has led to criticism with concerns about its tracking record in fair trade practices and ethical sourcing policies  4 .
4.

Starbucks's support for the Grocery Manufacturers Association  and its efforts to defeat GMO labeling laws has prompted boycotts by the Organic Consumers Association  and consumers demanding transparency in food labeling .
5.

Some people have called for a boycott of Starbucks due to its stance on social and political issues such as its hiring of refugees and CEO's stance against certain executive orders leading to backlash on social media platforms .
6.

Furthermore controversies around Starbucks have included incidents of perceived discrimination against police officers including an instance where deputies were ignored at a Starbucks store leading to calls for boycotts .

Please note that these reasons are based on the context provided and may not cover all factors leading to boycotts of Starbucks.


People are boycotting Starbucks for several reasons including their involvement in attempting to overturn GMO labeling laws contracts with Nestle that are opposed by some indigenous rights groups and CEO statements against certain political actions which led to backlash from consumers .

Additionally Starbucks has faced backlash for decisions like pledging to hire refugees which sparked social media outrage and calls for boycotting the company .

Other reasons for boycotting Starbucks include actions perceived as virtue signaling like mandatory sensitivity training for employees and political donations that some individuals disagree with .

Ultimately the reasons for boycotting Starbucks vary but they often stem from disagreements with the company's policies practices or public statements.


People are boycotting Starbucks for several reasons, one of which is their lack of adherence to fair trade and organic policies in their coffee sourcing.

The Organic Consumers Association has been pressuring Starbucks for 12 years to change its practices around organics and fair trade, but with limited success.

Some consumers are also unhappy with the company's decision to hire refugees, leading to calls for a boycott on social media.

Additionally, there have been concerns about the taste of their coffee, with critics arguing that Starbucks prioritizes caffeine content over taste, using inferior processes and burnt beans that are then disguised by sugary drinks.

The company's decision to stop using milk containing Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone was a victory for consumer pressure in 2007, but the lack of progress on other issues has led to ongoing calls for boycotts.


People are boycotting Starbucks due to several reasons including its policies and practices around organics and fair trade, racial bias incidents, high prices, and the company's political stances.

The Organic Consumers Association has been pressuring Starbucks to change its policies and practices around organics and fair trade, but with little success.

In 2018, Starbucks modified its policy to allow anyone to sit in its cafes, placing more pressure on baristas who may not be equipped to handle people without housing or those struggling with substance abuse.

The company's target audience is urban-ish, on-the-go individuals who are willing to plunk down $10 for a snack and beverage without thinking about the cost.

Starbucks has faced criticism for its racial bias incidents, including the arrest of two black men in a Philadelphia location in 2018.

Some consumers have also threatened to boycott Starbucks due to the company's political stances, such as CEO Howard Schultz's opposition to President Donald Trump's executive order barring immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US.


People are boycotting Starbucks for several reasons, many of which are rooted in the company’s political and social stances.

One major catalyst for the boycotts came in February 2017, when some Starbucks customers threatened to boycott the company after its CEO took a strong stand against President Donald Trump's executive order banning immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S..

This position amplified dissatisfaction among conservative customers who perceived the company's political stance as anti-Trump.

Additionally, Starbucks has faced multiple calls for boycotts due to its perceived alignment with progressive values and causes.

For instance, in 2015, presidential candidate Donald Trump suggested boycotting the chain over Starbucks removing "Merry Christmas" from their holiday cups, which many conservatives took as a sign of the company abandoning Christian values.

The controversy surrounding the holiday cups sparked significant backlash on social media, leading to increased momentum for the boycott movement endorsed by Trump.

Starbucks' involvement in social justice issues has also triggered boycotts.

In 2016, alt-right Twitter user Baked Alaska led a campaign encouraging his followers to ask Starbucks employees to write "Trump" on their cups, aiming to provoke the employees, whom he referred to using the derogatory term SJWs (social justice warriors).

Another reason for the boycott is linked to labor issues.

Over the years, Starbucks employees have filed multiple unfair labor practice charges against the company, citing issues such as inadequate working conditions, firing of union activists, and disputes over wage and labor rights.

These labor disputes, although less publicized in mainstream media, contribute to the dissatisfaction among some customer segments and activists.

Finally, some boycotts stem from broader criticisms of Starbucks as a large, global corporation.

Critics argue that the company embodies corporate overreach, often at the expense of smaller, local coffee shops, which fuels sentiment among those who prefer to support smaller, independent businesses.

Thus, the reasons behind boycotting Starbucks range from political and social disagreements to labor disputes and anti-corporate sentiments, reflecting a complex interplay of ideologies and economic considerations.


A group called the Organic Consumers Association has called for a boycott of Starbucks because of the company's attempts to overturn GMO labeling laws.

Starbucks is also under boycott by an indigenous rights group because of its contracts with Nestle.

People have also boycotted Starbucks because of its stance on political and social issues, such as gay marriage and the Black Lives Matter movement.

Others believe that consumers have the right to boycott businesses that do not align with their values.


people are boycotting Starbucks because they claim that the company has not met their expectations for organic, non-GMO drinks and snacks, despite 12 years of consumer pressure. The company has largely ignored consumer demand for fair trade and organic products, and instead supports the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a lobbying group that has spent millions of dollars to defeat GMO labeling laws.

conservatives are boycotting Starbucks due to the company's perceived liberal bias and support for Democrats, as well as its CEO's statement against President Donald Trump's executive order barring immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US.

the Organic Consumers Association has called for a boycott of Starbucks due to the company's support for the Grocery Manufacturers Association and its efforts to overturn GMO labeling laws. The association has also criticized Starbucks for its lack of fair trade practices and for only sourcing a small percentage of its coffee from certified fair trade suppliers.

Donald Trump has encouraged boycotting Starbucks in the past, and that some conservatives have threatened to boycott the company due to its perceived liberal bias and support for Democrats.

some conservatives are encouraging others to boycott Starbucks and instead support alternative coffee companies that are owned by patriots rather than "America haters".


Starbucks is being boycotted for various reasons, including its support for same-sex marriage, its alleged liberal bias and political commentary, its environmental impact, its ties to Nestle and Monsanto, its stance on immigration and refugees, and its failure to address concerns about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and fair trade practices.

Some boycotts are also in response to specific incidents, such as the company's decision to close its stores for sensitivity training after an incident with a customer, or its Christmas cup designs being perceived as pushing a "gay agenda."

Additionally, some conservatives are boycotting Starbucks for its perceived anti-Trump agenda and its donations to Democrats.


People are boycotting Starbucks because of the company's support for the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which has opposed GMO labeling initiatives.

Additionally, Starbucks has been criticized for its treatment of employees, paying them low wages and offering few benefits.

The company has also been accused of cultural appropriation for popularizing Turkish coffee without properly acknowledging or compensating the culture from which it originated.

Furthermore, some people boycott Starbucks because they believe that the company charges too much money for its products and that its prices are elitist.


99 Cents Only Stores faced significant financial challenges due to intense competition in the discount retail space

The company reported substantial losses in multiple quarters, including nearly $70 million in 2018.

Despite efforts to turn around the business, such as new ownership and management changes, the company continued to struggle financially.

The competitive pressure from other discount retailers like Dollar Tree, Dollar General, and Walmart made it difficult for 99 Cents Only Stores to remain profitable.


99 Cents Only Stores went out of business primarily due to significant financial losses and intense competition within the discount retail sector.

In 2018 alone, they recorded losses of nearly $70 million, which indicates a severe economic strain.

The crowded bargain retail market included competitors like Dollar Tree, Dollar General, and Walmart, all of which offered similar products at competitive prices.

This competition made it particularly challenging for 99 Cents Only Stores to maintain profitability.

Moreover, management issues, such as a leadership change, did not effectively reverse the company's declining fortunes.

The broader trend in retail has seen many brick-and-mortar stores struggle to keep up with changing consumer preferences and the rise of online shopping.


99 Cents Only Stores faced significant financial challenges and reported nearly $70 million in losses in 2018.

The retail landscape was increasingly crowded with competition from Dollar Tree, Dollar General, and Walmart.

These competitors captured substantial market share and contributed to the struggles of 99 Cents Only Stores.

Additionally, the company's revenues were declining while costs were rising, forcing it to implement changes such as raising prices beyond the original 99 cents.

Like other variety stores, 99 Cents Only Stores failed to adapt to changing consumer preferences and the evolving retail environment, leading to decreased foot traffic.

The company not only struggled with profitability, but it also had to deal with the transformations in shopping habits, including a shift toward online shopping and larger discount chains.

In summary, 99 Cents Only Stores likely faced a combination of financial distress, fierce competition, and an inability to adapt to changing retail dynamics.


Based on the provided information, 99 Cents Only Stores did not go out of business.

Instead, there are some challenges the company faced.

The document mentions that the company hemorrhaged money throughout 2018, leading to nearly $70 million in losses.

This was due to the crowded and competitive bargain retail space, with stores like Dollar Tree, Dollar General, and Walmart being significant competitors.

Despite these challenges, the doors of 99 Cents Only Stores are not closed yet, and the company might not survive until the end of 2019.

However, it is important to note that this information does not indicate the company has gone out of business at the time of writing.

The company was facing financial difficulties, and as of 2017, it reported a net income of $118 million, which was significantly lower than the net income reported in 2016.

The company was also involved in several strategic changes, such as a $1.

6 billion buy-out by private equity firms Ares Management and the CPP Investment Board in 2011.

This resulted in layoffs and changes in ownership, with the Gold family ending their involvement in January 2013.

Additionally, the company announced plans to close all stores in Texas in 2008, but later decided to close only one-third of its Texas stores due to a rise in sales.

It seems that the company was trying to adjust its operations and market presence to combat the challenges in the retail industry.

In summary, 99 Cents Only Stores did not go out of business, but instead, faced significant financial challenges due to the competitive retail market and strategic decisions that included store closures and ownership changes.


99 Cents Only Stores, which became popular for offering a wide range of products at just 99 cents, faced multiple challenges that eventually led to some of their stores going out of business.

One significant factor was rising operational costs, including increases in rent, wages, and transportation, which made it difficult to maintain profitability while selling items at such a low price.

Another issue was increased competition from other discount retailers and dollar stores, many of which expanded their product ranges and improved their store environments.

Additionally, inflation and changes in the global supply chain increased the cost of goods, further squeezing profit margins.

Consumer preferences also shifted, with many seeking either higher-quality products or shopping increasingly online, bypassing traditional brick-and-mortar discount stores.

Mismanagement and strategic missteps, such as overexpansion and inadequate investment in store maintenance, exacerbated these challenges.

Economic downturns also played a role, as they affected consumer spending habits and the financial stability of the company.

Consequently, these factors combined led to reduced foot traffic and sales, making it unsustainable for some 99 Cents Only stores to remain open, ultimately contributing to their closures and business retraction.


99 Cents Only Stores faced significant financial difficulties, reporting nearly $70 million in losses in 2018.

The heavy competition in the discount retail space from companies like Dollar Tree, Dollar General, and Walmart caused significant strain on the company.

Even as the company tried to turn things around by getting new ownership and management, it continued to suffer substantial losses.

While some products remained at the 99 cents price point, other items were sold at higher prices which might have affected the store's unique selling point.

Shifts in consumer behaviour and the growth of online shopping also likely contributed to the store's struggle.


99 Cents Only Stores faced significant financial challenges and competitive pressures that contributed to its struggles.

The company reported substantial financial losses over several years.

For instance, in December 2017, 99 Cents Only Stores reported a net loss of $27.1 million, following losses of $33.6 million in the second quarter and $8.8 million in the first quarter of the same year.

Additionally, the company experienced nearly $70 million in losses in 2018, which further exacerbated its financial difficulties.

The competitive landscape in the discount retail sector also played a crucial role in the company's struggles.

99 Cents Only Stores faced intense competition from other discount retailers such as Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Walmart, which made it difficult for the company to maintain its market position and profitability.

This crowded and competitive market environment significantly impacted the company's ability to generate sufficient revenue and sustain its operations.

Despite efforts to turn the business around, including a buyout by Ares Management and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board in 2012, the company continued to face financial instability.

The new ownership implemented various strategies, such as laying off employees and appointing new leadership, but these measures were not enough to reverse the company's declining fortunes.

Ultimately, the combination of ongoing financial losses, intense competition, and the inability to effectively adapt to market conditions led to the company's struggles and eventual decision to close some of its stores.


99 Cents Only Stores went out of business due to competition in the market from companies like Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Walmart, leading to significant financial losses, including a $27.1 million net loss in December 2017 and a total of nearly $70 million in losses in 2018.

Despite the store's efforts to adapt, including its shift to more flexible pricing and new management, 99 Cents Only Stores struggled to stay afloat, and by 2019, it was clear that the retailer might not survive due to the crowded and competitive bargain retail space.

Dave Gold, the founder of 99 Cents Only Stores, realized that pricing items at $0.99 increased sales, and he expanded this concept to a chain of retail stores selling items at this price point, eventually growing to over 350 locations across California, Arizona, Nevada, and Texas.


99 Cents Only Stores faced significant financial challenges that led to its decline.

The company struggled with intense competition from other discount retailers such as Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Walmart, which eroded its market share and profitability.

Despite efforts to turn around its fortunes, including a change in ownership and leadership, the company continued to report substantial losses.

In 2017, it reported a net loss of $27.1 million in December, following losses of $33.6 million in the second quarter and $8.8 million in the first quarter.

The financial instability persisted into 2018, with the company hemorrhaging nearly $70 million throughout the year.

This ongoing financial distress was compounded by a highly competitive bargain retail space, making it difficult for 99 Cents Only Stores to sustain its operations.

Additionally, the company carried a significant debt burden, which further strained its financial resources.

In an attempt to manage its debt, 99 Cents Only Stores made a deal with creditors and private equity owners to trade debt for equity.

However, this move led to a downgrade of its credit rating by S&P to CC, indicating a high risk of default.

The company’s financial woes were reminiscent of other retailers that sought similar relief but eventually filed for bankruptcy, such as Charlotte Russe.

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the situation by altering consumer behavior, with many opting for online shopping over in-store "treasure hunting" experiences, which 99 Cents Only Stores heavily relied upon.

This shift in consumer preferences further diminished the company's revenue streams.

In summary, 99 Cents Only Stores went out of business due to a combination of intense market competition, persistent financial losses, significant debt, and changing consumer behaviors exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.


99 Cents Only Stores faced significant financial challenges due to intense competition in the discount retail space.

The company reported substantial losses, including nearly $70 million in 2018.

Despite efforts to turn things around, such as new ownership and management changes, the company continued to struggle financially.

The crowded market with competitors like Dollar Tree, Dollar General, and Walmart made it difficult for 99 Cents Only Stores to remain profitable.


99 Cents Only Stores faced closures and layoffs due to financial struggles despite efforts for profitability.

The retailer suffered from significant competition from companies like Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Walmart.

The crowded and competitive bargain retail space is making life tough on 99 Cents Only Stores, leading to nearly $70 million in losses in 2018.

The company announced it would close all stores in Texas and later backtracked, deciding to close only a third of them.

Changes in pricing strategy, including raising prices and introducing flexible pricing, contributed to the challenges the store faced.

Despite raising prices and financial struggles, the company aimed for better management of commodity price increases.

The store continues to face tough competition in the bargain retail space that could threaten its survival.

In October 2011, the company agreed to a buyout after recording significant losses.

The company had laid off many employees during its restructuring stages to cope with financial issues.

99 Cents Only Stores expanded its pricing model in response to market pressures and cost increases.

The founder originally started the concept with a focus on affordability, which has become difficult to maintain.

The first store opened on August 13, 1982, showcasing a new approach to discount retail that ultimately led to financial difficulties.

The expansion of the chain was initially successful, but fluctuation in market dynamics has recently posed challenges.

Sales growth was not enough to offset the competitive losses especially as some prices began to rise above 99 cents.

The rise in costs and financial backers didn't prevent the retailer from experiencing significant operational losses.

Overall, the combination of increased competition from similar retailers and internal mismanagement led to their struggles.

The company began implementing more flexible pricing strategies to cope with diminishing profits.

The tradition of offering discounted products has not prevented the chain from rising losses and facing serious financial turmoil.


99 Cents Only Stores went out of business due to factors such as carrying items priced above $1, a shift in management ownership leading to layoffs, and ultimately not being profitable enough to sustain operations.

99 Cents Only went out of business due to severe competition from other discount retailers like Dollar General and Dollar Tree, along with significant financial losses over several quarters, including a reported net loss of $27.1 million in December 2017. Despite attempts to restructure and a change in leadership, the company could not recover.

99 Cents Only Stores faced severe financial difficulties, reporting nearly $70 million in losses in 2018, and struggled in the competitive discount retail market against rivals like Dollar Tree, Dollar General, and Walmart.

99 Cents Only Stores faced financial difficulties, including a $5.2 million loss in the second quarter of fiscal 2008 and ultimately closed all its Texas stores in September 2008, which contributed to its failure.

99 Cents Only Stores faced challenges that led to the closure of all its Texas stores, including a price increase to 99.99 cents, which may have affected its business model and customer appeal.

The 99 Cents Only Stores faced challenges that led to their decline, including the need to implement a more flexible pricing structure due to rising commodity prices, which resulted in items being sold for more than 99 cents. Additionally, despite efforts to maintain profitability and a rise in sales in certain regions, the overall impact of inflation and increased operational costs contributed to their financial struggles. Ultimately, the company was sold in a buy-out deal in 2012, indicating significant changes in ownership and possibly strategy.

99 Cent Stores faced difficulties leading to a buyout after a tumultuous period, but they have since reached stability and continue to operate, hiring new employees.

99 Cents Only Stores went out of business due to nearly $70 million in losses in 2018, facing intense competition from other bargain retailers like Dollar Tree, Dollar General, and Walmart, which made it difficult for them to sustain operations.

99 Cent Stores went out of business primarily due to financial losses, including a reported $5.2 million loss in the second quarter of fiscal 2008.

99 Cents Only Stores faced financial difficulties due to rising costs and inflation, which led them to implement a more flexible pricing structure and eventually raise prices for the first time in their history.


Despite having announced on September 18, 2008, that the company would close all stores in Texas, in February 2009, the company decided that it will close only one-third of its Texas stores.

The company, having just decided to close only one-third of its Texas stores, agreed to a $1.6-billion buy-out by private equity firm Ares Management and the CPP Investment Board in October 2011.

The deal was completed on January 13, 2012, marking the culmination of the $1.6-billion buy-out by Ares Management and the CPP Investment Board, which was agreed to by the company in October 2011.

Note: These sentences are relevant to the query because they provide context about the company's financial struggles and changes in ownership, which may have contributed to 99 Cent Stores' eventual decline and potential closure.

99 Cents Only, which had previously mentioned financial struggles and changes in ownership, reported a net loss of $27.1 million in December 2017.

The company, which had previously reported losses in the second quarter ($33.6 million) and Q1 ($8.8 million), reported a net loss of $27.1 million in December 2017.

The company is facing stiff competition from rivals like Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Walmart, which has likely contributed to its financial struggles.

The 35-year-old company, which had faced stiff competition from companies like Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Walmart, had tried to turn things around years prior, but ultimately went out of business.

However, despite its efforts, there are no other relevant sentences in the provided document that directly address the query or provide key facts about the company's demise.

99 Cents Only Stores, the company in question, hemorrhaged nearly $70 million in losses in 2018.

The company, which hemorrhaged nearly $70 million in losses in 2018, might not survive to see the end of 2019.

Note: These sentences are relevant to the query about 99 cent stores' struggles and potential demise, providing key information about the company's financial struggles and potential demise.

99 Cents Only Stores, which had announced a $5.2 million loss for the second quarter of Fiscal 2008 ended September 30, 2007, struggled financially.

99 Cents Only Stores plans to close all its Texas stores.

Note that there are only two key fact sentences that directly address the closure of 99 Cents Only's Texas stores, the subject of the initial announcement. The other sentences in the document are not relevant to the query.


Note: These sentences are relevant to the query because they provide context about the company's financial struggles and changes in ownership, which may have contributed to 99 Cent Stores' eventual decline and potential bankruptcy.

The company, which had reported losses of $33.6 million in the second quarter and $8.8 million in Q1, had also reported a net loss of $27.1 million in December 2017.

99 Cents Only, which had reported losses of $33.6 million in the second quarter and $8.8 million in Q1, is facing competition from companies like Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Walmart.

Note: These companies, including Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Walmart, pose significant financial struggles and competitive challenges for 99 Cents Only, which ultimately led to its decline.

99 Cents Only Stores, which faced financial struggles and competitive challenges, hemorrhaged nearly $70 million in losses in 2018.

These sentences provide information on why the company, which might not survive to see the end of 2019, went out of business, specifically mentioning the significant losses in 2018 and the uncertain future of the company.

99 Cents Only Stores, which had previously announced a $5.2 million loss for the second quarter of Fiscal 2008 ended September 30, 2007, faced significant financial challenges that ultimately led to its demise.

Note that the announcement of 99 Cents Only closing all its Texas stores is supported by only two key fact sentences that directly address the query, while the other sentences in the document are not relevant to the query.


99 Cents Only Stores faced significant financial challenges that contributed to its struggles in the competitive discount retail market.

The company reported substantial losses over several years, including a net loss of $27.1 million in December 2017, following losses of $33.6 million in the second quarter and $8.8 million in the first quarter of the same year.

In 2018, the company continued to hemorrhage money, with nearly $70 million in losses, which further strained its financial stability.

The competitive landscape also played a crucial role in the company's difficulties.

99 Cents Only Stores faced stiff competition from other discount retailers such as Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Walmart, which made it challenging to maintain profitability.

Despite efforts to turn the business around, including a buyout by Ares Management and the CPP Investment Board in 2012, and the appointment of a new CEO, Jack Sinclair, the company continued to struggle financially.

Additionally, the company implemented a more flexible pricing structure in 2003 and raised prices slightly in 2007 to combat rising costs and inflation, but these measures were not enough to offset the financial losses.

The combination of ongoing financial losses, intense competition, and the inability to achieve sustained profitability ultimately led to the company's decline.


99 Cents Only Stores faced intense competition from other discount retailers such as Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Walmart, which made it difficult to maintain profitability.

The company reported significant financial losses, including nearly $70 million in 2018, and continued to hemorrhage money despite efforts to turn things around.

In 2011, 99 Cents Only Stores was acquired by Ares Management and the CPP Investment Board for $1.6 billion, but the new ownership laid off over 172 employees in 2013, indicating financial struggles.

The company attempted to adapt by raising prices slightly above 99 cents and introducing more flexible pricing, but these measures were not enough to offset rising costs and inflation.

Despite reporting positive same-store sales, the company continued to lose money, with net losses reported in multiple quarters of 2017.

The crowded and competitive bargain retail space, combined with the company's financial instability, ultimately led to its decline.


Based on the provided information, there is no indication that 99 Cent Stores went out of business.

In fact, it appears that the company has continued to expand over the years, with over 350 stores across four states and two distribution centers in California and Texas as of 2012.

The company also underwent a $1.6-billion buy-out by private equity firm Ares Management and the CPP Investment Board in 2011, which helped facilitate its continued expansion.

However, it is worth noting that the company did announce plans to close all of its Texas stores in 2008, but later decided to keep one-third of them open due to a rise in sales.

Additionally, there were layoffs of over 170 employees in 2013, but this was not enough to cause the company to go out of business.

Overall, it seems that 99 Cent Stores has been able to adapt and continue operating despite facing various challenges over the years.


The 99 Cents Only Stores chain went out of business in Texas in 2008 due to rising sales, but they decided to close only one-third of their stores instead of all of them.

In 2011, the company agreed to a $1.6-billion buyout by private equity firm Ares Management and the CPP Investment Board.

The Gold family ended their involvement with the company in January 2013, and new ownership decided to lay off more than 172 employees in October 2013.

Despite this, the 99 Cents Only Stores are still open across the country in close to 300 locations, offering a wide range of products that all cost less than a dollar.

The company's headquarters is located in Commerce, California, and it was founded in 1982 by Dave Gold with the idea of providing better prices to people by selling products at 99 cents or less.

The original concept for the store came from a test that Dave Gold ran in his liquor store in downtown Los Angeles, where he sold bottles of wine at a fixed price-point of 99 cents.

The test was an instant success, and Dave thought selling everything in the store for 99 cents would be hugely popular.

He started offering 99-cent deals for televisions and other exciting products to attract more customers, which became a tradition that continues today with every new store.

The company's popularity grew rapidly, and they expanded to about 350 stores in California, Arizona, Nevada, and Texas by 2017.

However, despite the company's success, it reported a net loss of $27.1 million in December 2017, with $33.6 million in losses in the second quarter and $8.8 million in Q1.

The retailer is facing stiff competition from companies like Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Walmart, but it still has a loyal customer base that values its low prices and wide range of products.

It's important to note that despite the name, not all items in the store are priced at 99 cents, as some may cost $1.99 or $2.99.

However, the company still maintains a strong commitment to offering affordable prices to its customers, which has been a cornerstone of its business strategy since its inception.


The 99 Cents Only Stores chain has not gone out of business.

However, it has faced financial difficulties and increased competition in the market.

The company was founded in 1982 by David and Sherry Gold, who initially sold wine and then expanded to other retail goods, all priced at 99 cents.

In 2003, the company introduced a more flexible pricing structure, selling items for less than 99 cents (e.g. 69 or 49 cents) to better manage commodity price increases.

However, in 2007, the company was forced to raise its prices by $0.0099 (about 1%) to combat rising costs and inflation.

This was the first price increase in the company's history.

Despite this, the company continued to struggle financially, reporting a net loss of $27.1 million in 2017 on top of additional losses in the second quarter and Q1.

In 2011, the company agreed to a $1.6 billion buyout by private equity firm Ares Management and the CPP Investment Board, which was completed in 2012.

This marked a turning point for the company, leading to its expansion into new stores and markets.

However, the new ownership also laid off over 170 employees in 2013, and the Gold family ended their involvement with the company.

In summary, while 99 Cents Only Stores has faced financial challenges and increased competition, it has not gone out of business.

The company has implemented various strategies, such as pricing adjustments and a buyout by new investors, to remain operational and expand its business.


99 Cents Only stores went out of business due to facing intense competition from other discount retailers such as Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Walmart, which led to significant losses and difficulty in adapting to the changing market landscape.


The 99 Cents Only Stores faced significant challenges leading to their decline and closures.

The company struggled with intense competition from other discount retailers such as Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Walmart, which significantly impacted their market share and profitability.

Despite efforts to revive the brand, including a change of ownership to Ares Management, Canada Pension Plan, and a private family, and the appointment of a new CEO, Jack Sinclair, the company continued to face substantial financial losses.

In December 2017 alone, 99 Cents Only Stores reported a net loss of $27.1 million, following previous losses of $33.6 million in the second quarter and $8.8 million in the first quarter of that year.

The financial struggles were compounded by shifts in their pricing strategy.

Initially, everything in the store was priced at 99 cents or less, but over time, the company introduced higher price points for certain products, which may have confused or alienated their customer base who were seeking ultra-low prices.

Furthermore, the company expanded rapidly, which included operations in Southern California, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas, but this broad geographic footprint may have stretched their resources too thin.

Historically, the concept was a novel idea by David Gold, who founded the stores in 1969.

He discovered the power of pricing items at $0.99 while liquidating slow-selling wines at his liquor store, leading him to open a chain of retail stores with items priced at that point.

However, despite the innovative start and decades of success, the company’s inability to adapt effectively to market conditions in later years ultimately led to its decline.

Losses persisted despite attempts to reset the business trajectory, indicating deeper issues in operational and competitive strategy.

Conclusively, 99 Cents Only Stores' closure was largely driven by unmitigated financial losses, strong market competition, and strategic missteps in pricing and expansion.


99 Cents Only Stores faced several challenges leading to their decline and eventual closure.

While they initially thrived by offering affordable products, several internal and external factors contributed to their downfall.

One significant issue was the company’s heavy reliance on the California market, with 75% of its stores located in the state.

This concentration made the company vulnerable to economic fluctuations and market saturation in that area.

Additionally, internal management changes negatively impacted the company.

The Gold family, who were the original founders, ended their involvement with the company in January 2013.

This transition in ownership likely disrupted operations and strategic direction.

Furthermore, in October 2013, under new management, the company laid off more than 172 employees, indicating possible financial troubles and attempts at cost-saving measures that might have affected employee morale and service quality.

Though 99 Cents Only Stores had a strong reputation for their unique and humorous marketing strategies and reliable supplier relationships that spanned over 25 years, these strengths were insufficient to offset the operational and market challenges they faced.

Their practice of making very large volume purchases and ability to pay cash or accept abbreviated credit terms from suppliers maintained their inventory but couldn't mitigate declining profitability.

Thus, the combination of market saturation, the shift in management, layoffs, and the inability to adapt to changing economic conditions led to the decline and eventual closure of 99 Cents Only Stores.

Their initial success based on deep discounts and extensive supplier relationships could not sustain the company as challenges mounted over time.


99 Cents Only Stores faced a multitude of challenges that ultimately led to its financial struggles and store closures.

The company operated in a highly competitive discount retail market, facing stiff competition from larger players like Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and Walmart, which significantly impacted its market share and profitability.

Despite efforts to adapt through flexible pricing and operational adjustments, such as raising prices slightly above 99 cents to manage rising costs and inflation, the company continued to report significant financial losses.

Ownership transitions and restructuring efforts under private equity firms Ares Management and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board involved layoffs and management changes, but these measures were insufficient to stabilize the company.

The high volume, low-profit margin business model presented inherent challenges, and issues related to product quality and consumer perception further complicated the company's ability to attract and retain customers.

The company reported significant financial losses over several years.

For instance, in 2017, it reported a net loss of $27.1 million, following losses in previous quarters.

In 2008, the company announced a $5.2 million loss for the second quarter of fiscal 2008.

Despite efforts to turn things around, including closing some stores and laying off employees, the company continued to struggle financially.

Ultimately, the company's financial distress led to considerations of bankruptcy filings and deals with creditors to trade debt for equity, which further highlighted the severity of its financial challenges.

These actions underscore the broader market dynamics that contributed to the decline of 99 Cents Only Stores.


The 99 Cents Only Stores went out of business due to significant operational and financial challenges, including the controversial decision to sell items above the traditional 99 cents, which contributed to ongoing losses despite positive same-store sales. In 2018, the company reported nearly $70 million in losses primarily due to intense competition from discount retailers like Dollar Tree and Walmart, which was exacerbated by the coronavirus outbreak leading to store closures and necessary negotiations with creditors.

Additionally, the company faced a net loss of $27.1 million in December 2017, following larger losses in prior years, which resulted in a downgrade of its credit rating to CC by S&P.

Ultimately, after struggling for three years, the company was acquired in a $1.6 billion buyout, which also led to the layoff of approximately 172 employees by October 2013.