During the last few years, Cancel culture became a significant part of the social mediaculture. The new phenomenon aims to call out people or companies that have acted in a wayt hat does not go with the values of the consumers, which leads to a canceling. Companies got canceled and had to adjust their crisis communication to the consumers in order to repair the companies image. The consumers in question are mainly Millennials and Generation Z who tend to be ethical consumers that focus on social injustice. This leads to bigger pressure on companies to act and adjust their crisis communication accordingly. The purpose of this study is to investigate what kind of crisis communication could be used during a canceling. A statement from two canceled companies, Oatly and Starbucks, will be examined based on their crisis strategies and rhetorical strategies. Both companies claim that their actions in areas, such as climate change and social injustice, are correct and they try to convince thee thical consumers that they can be trusted as an ethical company. The study revealed that both companies used established strategies in their crisis communication, which did differ from one another. Both companies claim that their actions in areas, such as climate change and social injustice, are correct and they try to convince the ethical consumers that they can be trusted as an ethical company. Oatly communicated in a transcendent way and stood firmly by their actions, whereas Starbucks promised to change their actions.