DC Circuit Dismisses Former Child Laborers' Suit Against Cocoa Importers for Lack of Standing
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on July 22 dismissed a lawsuit from eight Malian citizens against seven U.S. cocoa importers, which was filed under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), for lack of standing. Judges Sri Srinivasan, Patricia Millett and Justin Walker held that the Malian citizens, who attempted to certify a class, failed to clearly allege facts showing the "causal connection between" the importers' "alleged supply chain venture" and the laborers' forced child labor (Issouf Coubaly v. Cargill, D.C. Cir. # 22-7104).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The Malian citizens initially filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the seven importers, which included companies such as Cargill, Nestle, Hershey and Mars, on the basis that they were forced to work as children on cocoa farms in Cote d'Ivoire. The laborers sued under the TVPRA, which provides a civil remedy against anyone who knowingly benefits from participating in a venture that violates federal slavery and human trafficking laws.
After the district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, the appeal was stayed pending resolution of a similar matter, Doe 1 v. Apple, which was another TVPRA lawsuit, though this one was filed by former child cobalt miners in the Congo against cobalt importers Apple, Google, Microsoft, Dell and Tesla (see 2111090071). In that appeal, the D.C. Circuit said the miners established standing to sue the companies but failed to state a claim under the TVPRA.
Walker, writing for the three-judge panel, distinguished the case from Apple, finding that the Malian citizens failed to establish standing.
The laborers' "first mistake is their failure to clearly -- or even coherently -- define the 'venture' in which the Importers allegedly participated," the court said. The Malian citizens, represented by anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates, alleged that the importers created a cocoa supply chain venture to provide themselves with cheap cocoa harvested by "enslaved children." To delay action against child labor, the importers allegedly created the World Cocoa Foundation, the laborers said.
The D.C. Circuit questioned whether the laborers' theory of the alleged venture refers to a venture of the World Cocoa Foundation ("an association of the Importers themselves") or a venture of the Importers themselves "with each other and their cocoa suppliers." Walker pointed out that the "complaint does not clarify."
Putting the question of whether a venture existed aside, the judge held that the complaint doens't "contain sufficient 'factual matter' to render plausible any causal connection between the Plaintiffs’ forced labor and the Importers’ purchase of Ivorian cocoa." The complaint thus "fails to articulate a plausible causal link between the Importers and the specific farms where the Plaintiffs worked."
For instance, the lead plaintiff, Issouf Coubaly, doesn't "plausibly allege" that the small farm where he was forced to work, Guezouba, supplied one of the sued importers, Walker said. "Nor does he allege that Guezouba supplied an intermediary company that in turn supplied a specific Importer."
At most, the laborers allege that some farms were in "areas" that "primarily" sold cocoa to some of the defendant companies and other farms were in "areas" that sold to "all" of the defendants, but these claims don't "plausibly allege that the Importers of their venture caused the Plaintiffs' individual injuries," the court said. While the laborers "place much weight" on the statistic that the defendant companies buy nearly 70% of Ivorian cocoa, "that statistic does not identify which farm sold to which Importer -- or which farm sold to which intermediary that then sold to which Importer," the court said.
Walker held that the laborers "needed to plausibly allege specific facts showing that the Importers sourced cocoa from the farms where they worked -- either directly or through intermediaries" to show standing. Lastly, while the laborers "vaguely" gestured to the importers' staff operating in Cote d'Ivoire, the "complaint offers no facts about these unnamed intermediaries."
Walker then detailed how the cocoa laborers' case differs from Apple. While the Apple court made clear that TVPRA plaintiffs don't need to connect the defendants to the specific product mined or harvested by the plaintiffs, the Apple plaintiffs "did connect the defendants to the sellers of cobalt mined by the plaintiffs," the court said.
Unlike the cocoa laborers' case, the Apple complaint "(1) identified the mine where James Doe 1 worked, (2) identified the company that owned and controlled the subsidiary that operated the mine, and (3) plausibly alleged that this company ultimately supplied cobalt to each defendant (via clearly identified intermediaries).”