11 of the Most Famous Boycotts in US History

There’s more than one way to protest. Some people protest with their voices, others with their wallets. A boycott, an agreement by a group of people not to do business with a certain company, is a powerful form of economic protest.

Throughout U.S. history, people have used their purchasing power alongside their First Amendment rights to boycott. They’ve used the freedoms of speech and the press to tell people about boycotts, assembly to gather to organize and promote them, and sometimes petition to ask for government action related to the boycotts’ causes.

The First Amendment protects the right to speak out, gather, organize and push for change. But laws also prevent intentional interference with business relationships, including illegal financial and economic manipulation, as a way to preserve competition.

The tension between these principles means that courts are sometimes asked to weigh whether boycotts are a protected push for protection of peoples’ rights or a less protected play for economic gain.

Discover 11 famous boycotts

In this article, we explore boycotts in the U.S. stretching all the way back to the 18th century, to those that are still underway today. These boycotts span a range of causes and illustrate how the First Amendment gives people the right to speak out and organize, regardless of the issue.

Colonial boycotts and the Boston Tea Party | 1760s-1770s

When Britain imposed taxes on the American colonies to pay war debts in the 1760s and 1770s, colonists boycotted British goods. “Non-importation agreements” became widespread as colonists in cities like Boston, New York and Philadelphia pledged not to purchase imported and taxed items like tea, cloth and sugar, despite the economic strain it placed on colonists and merchants. Those who broke the boycotts found their names published in newspapers. Boycotts pressured Parliament to repeal most taxes — except for tea.

Colonists responded with renewed boycotts and by destroying imported tea at an event that’s become known as the Boston Tea Party. Britain answered with harsh tax enforcement and martial rule. When peaceful petitions to restore rights were ignored, colonial leaders ultimately chose revolution. The boycotts that started as protests became a step on the road to independence.

Montgomery bus boycott | 1955-1956

In 1955, Montgomery, Alabama, required Black bus riders to sit in the back and give up their seats to white passengers. The arrest of Rosa Parks, a Black woman and NAACP secretary who refused to give up her seat, galvanized the local Black community. Nearly 90% of Black residents participated in a one-day bus boycott on Dec. 5. They formed the Montgomery Improvement Association, led by a young pastor named the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., to turn the boycott into a longer campaign.

For more than a year, bus boycotters faced harassment, arrests and threats. The city declared carpools to be illegal interference with city business and indicted more than 80 organizers, including King. But the boycott endured. Participants walked miles or found creative ways to avoid city buses.

In June 1956, a federal court ruled that segregation on public buses was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ruling that November, forcing Montgomery to end bus segregation. The boycott showed how nonviolent protest could lead to change.

United Farm Workers produce boycotts | 1965-1970

In September 1965, 800 Filipino farmworkers working in grape fields in Delano, California, walked off the job to demand fair wages. Federal law at the time restricted boycotts related to labor strikes, but this law didn’t apply to farmworkers, so the workers turned to public pressure. United Farm Workers launched a national boycott. Support from restaurant workers, churches and consumers helped drive down sales of nonunion grapes and secure a labor contract with one large grape company.

The grape boycott expanded, with supermarkets and liquor stores across the country refusing to buy nonunion grapes and grape products like wine. Workers also marched 300 miles to California’s capital, Sacramento, to petition for change. By 1970, the pressure led to new contracts that improved wages and working conditions.

That same year, the union called for a boycott of nonunion lettuce during the “Salad Bowl” strike, the largest farmworker strike in U.S. history. A court ordered an end to the boycott; growers had contracts with a different labor union, so the UFW’s strike violated California law. But the boycott continued until a new labor contract was signed in March 1971.These boycotts showed that people can bring about change by using their First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly and petition to unite communities and appeal to the public conscience.

NAACP Mississippi boycott of white-owned businesses | 1966-1972

In Claiborne County, Mississippi, in 1966, local Black leaders and the NAACP organized a boycott of white-owned businesses after local officials did not meet a list of demands for racial equality. The protest was mostly peaceful, but some incidents of threats and property damage directed at residents who did not participate in the boycott raised questions about its legality.

White business owners who lost income sued the NAACP and organizers, arguing that the boycott unlawfully interfered with their businesses. In 1976, a Mississippi court sided with the business owners, saying that the organizers owed damages for lost profits. The court claimed the boycott violated antitrust laws, benefiting Black-owned businesses by reducing competition.

The Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s ruling (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, 1982). The court emphasized that speeches, marches and public organizing of the boycott were protected by the First Amendment. It acknowledged that some people had engaged in violence or threats, but it ruled that the NAACP could not be held responsible because the group didn’t authorize or incite those actions.

This ruling affirmed that peaceful political boycotts are a form of constitutionally protected protest — and that violence is not protected. As the Supreme Court noted in its opinion:

“While States have broad power to regulate economic activities, there is no comparable right to prohibit peaceful political activity such as that found in the boycott in this case.”

Nestlé boycott | 1974-1984

In the late 1970s, a global boycott of Nestlé focused on corporate responsibility and public health. The controversy centered on Nestlé’s marketing of baby formula in developing countries, where access to clean water and sanitation was often limited. Critics argued that promoting formula over breastfeeding in these regions led to severe health risks for infants, including malnutrition, dehydration, and even death when formula was too diluted or mixed with unsafe water.

By 1977, activists launched a boycott of Nestlé products in the U.S., demanding accountability and regulations. In 1978, U.S. Senate hearings brought more attention to the issue.

In 1981, the World Health Organization issued guidelines for marketing baby formula. Nestlé agreed to follow the code in 1984, leading to the official end of the boycott. However, watchdog groups accuse Nestlé of continuing harmful practices to the present day.

The boycott showed how consumers can influence corporate behavior and policy. While it didn’t drastically impact Nestlé’s formula sales, it sparked conversations about ethical marketing, health equity and corporate responsibility.

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement | 2005-ongoing

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which began in 2005, protests Israel's policies around Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. It calls for targeted boycotts of companies and products it considers complicit in supporting Israel's policies. It pressures governments, institutions and corporations to divest from or avoid dealings with companies that back Israel's actions.

In the U.S., more than half of states have laws prohibiting state agencies from doing business with anyone who participates in the BDS movement.

In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an Arkansas state law that required companies to sign pledges not to boycott Israel in order to be eligible for government contracts. Lower courts had ruled that the law violated the First Amendment by restricting free speech, but higher courts upheld it, citing boycotts as commercial rather than expressive conduct.

Anti-BDS laws have sparked debates about the balance between free speech and the government's ability to promote foreign policy goals. Critics argue that these laws limit political expression, while supporters maintain they protect Israel from discriminatory economic actions. Today, most state anti-BDS laws apply to larger government contracts and not to individuals, who are free to participate in BDS actions if they choose.

Starbucks boycott over holiday cups | 2015-2017

In 2015, Starbucks released a plain red holiday season cup. Critics said Starbucks was trying to eliminate Christmas from its branding. The controversy grew when then-presidential candidate Donald Trump called for a boycott of the company.

Starbucks said its simple, solid-color cup was an effort to encourage customers to personalize their holiday cups. However, the move also led to further criticism in the following years. In 2016, Starbucks introduced a green cup designed with abstract, unity-inspired patterns, and in 2017, it released a cup featuring drawings of hands instead of the winter-themed designs it had used in prior decades.

Starbucks reported increased sales during the holiday and post-holiday seasons. This suggests that the boycott, while generating media attention, did not harm the company’s bottom line.

SeaWorld boycott | 2013-ongoing

The 2013 documentary “Blackfish” sparked a boycott of SeaWorld parks over the company’s treatment of captive orcas. The film depicted the stress and aggression that orcas experienced in captivity, alleging that it led to the death of a SeaWorld trainer in 2010. SeaWorld countered the film’s claims by saying that they were exaggerated, but the documentary galvanized public opinion.

In response to the backlash, SeaWorld paused and redesigned its orca experiences. Protests continued, and celebrities including Harry Styles and Matt Damon publicly supported the boycott.

SeaWorld parks’ attendance, revenue and stock prices all dropped, leading to a shareholder lawsuit that claimed the company had misled investors about the financial consequences of the protests. California banned captive breeding of orcas in 2016.

The boycott showed how consumer activism can influence corporate policies and even contribute to changes in the law.

Twitter/X boycott | 2022-ongoing

After Elon Musk bought Twitter (since renamed X) in 2022, concerns over changes to the platform's content moderation practices led to a call for a boycott publicly urging Twitter’s top advertisers to pull their ads. Half of the top advertisers pulled their spending within months. Musk sued one organization of advertisers for the lost revenue, claiming the boycott was an illegal attempt to pressure Twitter into adopting certain content policies.

The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, and politically motivated boycotts are generally seen as protected speech. However, Musk claims that the boycott involved collusion among advertisers, violating antitrust laws that are designed to prevent businesses from unfairly restricting competition. He argues that these companies collectively decided to harm the platform in an illegal economic action. As of May 2025, the case is pending in federal court.

Bud Light boycott | 2023-ongoing

In April 2023, Bud Light, the top-selling beer in the U.S., partnered with influencer Dylan Mulvaney for a promotional social media post. Mulvaney, a transgender woman, posted a video that included a custom Bud Light can featuring her image. People who felt the partnership was controversial called for a boycott.

Research comparing Bud Light's sales after the social media post with the same months in prior years showed a sharp decrease in sales following the promotion. Bud Light dropped from most-purchased to third-most-purchased beer in the U.S. The boycott led to an extended shift in consumer behavior. Even months later, distributors reduced supply and sales continued to drop. People magazine reported that the marketing executives who were involved in the partnership were put on leave. The boycott showed how marketing can affect a brand’s image and sales.

Tesla boycott | 2025-ongoing

Tesla faced calls for boycotts following owner Elon Musk’s involvement in early 2025 in implementing federal government cuts in employment and funding. Tesla’s sales and stock have since dropped.

Musk has publicly dismissed the effect of the boycotts, noting the larger challenges facing Tesla, such as economic uncertainty and increased competition. After Musk said in April 2025 that his work in Washington, D.C., would be reduced, Tesla stock jumped.

President Trump has called the boycott illegal. Some protests of the company have included vandalism of cars, which is never a protected form of protest under the First Amendment.

The bottom line on boycotts and the First Amendment

Boycotts are a powerful way for people to speak out, and the First Amendment protects much of this kind of action. Whether it’s refusing to buy a product, urging others to do the same or protesting economic policies, the First Amendment protects the right to organize around spending choices.

But there are limits. If a boycott is designed to hurt a competitor for economic advantage, rather than to promote political or social change, it might not be protected. Violence and vandalism are never protected forms of protest.

Understanding these limits matters because boycotts are often part of larger movements for change that use First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly and petitioning the government. Whether it’s for a social cause, environmental impact or a political stance, organized consumer action is a powerful form of protest — one where the First Amendment plays a starring role.

Karen Hansen is a content writer at Freedom Forum. She can be reached at [email protected].