Apple, Google, Microsoft, Dell and Tesla Escape Child Labor Suit Over Cobalt Mining in Congo

Apple, Google, Microsoft, Dell and Tesla will avoid a lawsuit alleging the tech giants benefited from child labor in cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Finding that the plaintiffs -- a group of anonymous individuals -- failed to establish a causal connection between their injuries and the tech companies, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case, finding a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (John Doe I, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al., D.D.C. #19-03737).

The plaintiffs represent child laborers in the Congo who mine cobalt for use in lithium-ion batteries -- a key component of smartphones, electric cars and the like. The lawsuit alleged that the companies violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, even though the five companies were the end-purchasers of the cobalt and did not operate the mines. The companies that do operate these mines, such as Umicore and Huayou Cobalt, were left off the lawsuit. In all, the plaintiffs made allegations against the five companies related to forced labor, unjust enrichment, negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotion distress. However, the court pointed out that the plaintiffs "do not allege what law governs these claims."

To establish standing, a plaintiff must show that there is a causal connection between the injury and the defendant's conduct -- a standard the plaintiffs in this instance failed to clear, the judge said. The anonymous individuals did not allege that any of the companies owned or operated any of the mines, but only faulted them for buying cobalt and propping up its demand.

"But it takes many analytical leaps to say that the end-purchasers of a fungible metal are responsible for the conditions in which that metal might or might not have been mined, especially when that mining took place thousands of miles away and flowed through many independent companies before reaching Defendants," the judge said. "At the very least, Plaintiffs would need to allege specific facts laying out each Defendants’ role in this protracted causal chain."

The plaintiffs also failed to allege a violation of the TVPRA, the judge said. To do so would require that the companies participated in a venture that violated the act, but a global supply chain is not a venture, the opinion read. Further, the TVPRA does not apply extraterritorially because "when a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none," the judge said.

While acknowledging the trauma experienced by the plaintiffs in these mines, the judge ultimately dropped the case for lack of jurisdiction and a too-broad attempt to apply the TVPRA. "Section 1595 provides a civil remedy to 'a victim of a violation' of the TVPRA -- it does not create a new violation merely for benefitting from other violations," the judge said.