Last time we reported on a Starbucks lawsuit, public sympathy was tilted in the caffeine giant's favor. Even the frequently anticorporate commenters at Consumerist thought it was stupid to sue them for "betrayal" over a botched email coupon.

But they're rooting for a Bellevue woman who sued Starbucks on Monday for "unlawful use and abuse of its monopoly power." And no, that's not putting three hotels on Boardwalk. Penny Stafford, owner of Belvi Coffee and Tea Exchange, claims that "Starbucks violated federal antitrust laws by leasing prime commercial real estate at above-market prices in return for the exclusive right to sell espresso drinks or specialty coffee in those locations."

She also says that once she got a Bellevue office location, Starbucks had employees "stand at the entrance of Ms. Stafford's business for the purpose of handing out free Starbucks drinks." End result? Her store folded in four months.

Consumerist points out some of Starbucks' weasel words in their response:

The suit claims that Starbucks actually controls a whopping 73% of the American coffeeshop market. They then qualify that with "at least." I find that pretty damn hard to swallow, but Starbucks' retort is so oddly semantic that it lends the claim veracity: they claim they only have 8% market share in all coffee consumed in the States. See what they did there?

Still, not everyone is in Stafford's corner. E.g., adamonti in that post's comment thread:

What?!? Starbucks pays a premium for prime real estate? They hand out free samples when opening a new location? HOW DARE THEY EMPLOY COMMON, EFFECTIVE, INTELLIGENT BUSINESS PRACTICES?

Any company would employ these same tactics if they had the resources to do so. Firebombing competitors' locations = bad. Leasing prime space and handing out free samples = good. Sounds like someone needs to quit whining.

(And it took just two comments before someone hauled out that old anti-Starbucks chestnut, "The coffee's not even that good.") Folks on Starbucks Gossip aren't much more sympathetic.