Lawsuits over cobalt and other minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been aimed at the world’s biggest tech companies since 2019, and they are still going. A landmark forced-labor case against Apple, Alphabet, Dell, Microsoft, and Tesla was dismissed on appeal in March 2024, but the Congolese government has since filed criminal complaints against Apple in Europe, and a fresh consumer-protection lawsuit was filed against Apple in Washington, D.C. in November 2025.
The 2019 Child Labor Case Against Five Tech Giants
The case that started it all was filed on December 16, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the nonprofit International Rights Advocates. It named Apple, Alphabet (Google’s parent), Dell, Microsoft, and Tesla as defendants and represented 14 Congolese plaintiffs — families and children who had been killed or severely injured in artisanal cobalt mines in the DRC’s Haut-Katanga and Lualaba Provinces.1The Guardian. Apple and Google Named in US Lawsuit Over Congolese Child Cobalt Mining Deaths
The complaint described children as young as six working in hand-dug tunnels without safety equipment, hauling ore for as little as $0.75 a day. One plaintiff began mining at nine for the Kamoto Copper Company, a Glencore-owned operation, and was permanently paralyzed from the chest down after falling into a tunnel. Another plaintiff’s nephew was killed in a tunnel collapse in April 2019 and his body was never recovered.1The Guardian. Apple and Google Named in US Lawsuit Over Congolese Child Cobalt Mining Deaths The mining sites named in the complaint included Mashhamba East, Lac Malo B5, Tilwezembe, and Kamilombe, tied to Glencore’s Kamoto Copper Company and to Congo Dongfang Mining, a subsidiary of the Chinese firm Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt.2RegMedia. Cobalt Lawsuit Complaint
The legal theory rested on the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), which allows civil suits against anyone who participates in a “venture” that knowingly benefits from forced labor or trafficking. The families also brought common law claims for unjust enrichment, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit alleged the companies were “knowingly benefiting from and aiding and abetting the cruel and brutal use of young children” to mine cobalt for lithium-ion batteries.3ClassAction.org. Doe et al. v. Apple Inc. et al.
All five companies denied responsibility. Their argument was that they buy cobalt on the open market and neither own nor operate any mines in the DRC. A Microsoft spokesperson, speaking on behalf of the defendants in October 2020, said: “We are committed to responsible and ethical sourcing of materials and do not tolerate child labour in our supply chain.”4International Rights Advocates. Cobalt
Why the Case Was Dismissed
Judge Carl J. Nichols dismissed the case on November 2, 2021, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing and had not stated a viable TVPRA claim.5Baker McKenzie Supply Chain Compliance Blog. US Court Dismissed Cobalt Mining Forced Labor Lawsuit Against Tech Companies On March 5, 2024, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed. The appeals court granted the plaintiffs standing to seek damages but ruled they had failed to state a viable legal claim.6Justia. John Doe 1 v. Apple Inc., No. 21-7135
The decision turned on what “participation in a venture” means under the TVPRA. Buying an unspecified amount of cobalt through a global supply chain is nothing more than an “arms-length transaction,” the court held, and does not meet the statute’s requirement of a shared enterprise involving mutual risk and gain. The tech companies held no ownership interest in their cobalt suppliers and did not share in those suppliers’ profits.6Justia. John Doe 1 v. Apple Inc., No. 21-7135 The court also declined to issue an injunction, noting that an order directed at these five companies would not bind the direct perpetrators of the labor abuses, who were not parties to the case.7ABC News. US Court Absolves Top Tech Companies in Congos Child Labor Case The common law claims fell along with the TVPRA claim.
The DRC Government’s Criminal Complaints Against Apple
The focus soon shifted from cobalt to a different set of minerals and a different defendant. In April 2024, the DRC government, working with the law firm Amsterdam & Partners LLP and Paris-based attorney William Bourdon, sent a cease-and-desist notice to Apple CEO Tim Cook. The lawyers alleged that Apple products contained minerals illegally exploited from the conflict-torn eastern DRC and demanded answers about the company’s supply chain practices.8Le Monde. DRC Accuses Apple of Using Illegally Exploited Minerals From Conflict-Torn East Apple did not respond within the three-week deadline.9Amsterdam & Partners. Lawyers for Democratic Republic of the Congo Obtain New Evidence as Apple Stays Silent
The legal team then published a report titled “Blood Minerals – The Laundering of DRC’s 3T Minerals by Rwanda and Private Entities,” alleging that tin, tungsten, and tantalum from mines controlled by the Rwandan-backed M23 rebel group were being smuggled through Rwanda and laundered into legitimate supply chains.10People’s Dispatch. The DRCs Historic Case Against Apple Over Blood Minerals in Its Supply Chain M23 controls coltan production around Rubaya in eastern DRC, a region that provides roughly 15% of the world’s tantalum supply.11Al Jazeera. Why Has DRC Filed Criminal Charges Against Apple Over Conflict Minerals
In December 2024, the DRC filed criminal complaints against Apple subsidiaries in both France and Belgium, accusing the company of covering up war crimes, laundering smuggled minerals, and engaging in deceptive consumer practices.12Le Monde. DRC Files Lawsuits Accusing Apple of Covering Up War Crimes The French case was dismissed on February 18, 2025, when the Paris public prosecutor found the allegations “not sufficiently well-founded.” The DRC’s lawyers announced plans to challenge the dismissal at the Paris Court of Appeal, and the Belgian criminal complaint remains under investigation.13RFI. Paris Prosecutor Dismisses Case Against Apple Over DRC Conflict Minerals
The November 2025 Consumer Protection Lawsuit
On November 25, 2025, International Rights Advocates opened a new front. Rather than reviving the TVPRA claims that had failed in federal court, it sued Apple in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, alleging false and deceptive marketing about mineral sourcing.14International Rights Advocates. International Rights Advocates v. Apple Inc.
The complaint accuses Apple of misleading consumers about its commitment to responsible sourcing and “people and the planet” while its supply chain allegedly involves cobalt suppliers that exploit workers and use child labor, and tantalum suppliers processing coltan likely sourced from mines that fund armed groups in eastern DRC.14International Rights Advocates. International Rights Advocates v. Apple Inc. Three Chinese smelters are named — Ningxia Orient, JiuJiang JinXin, and Jiujiang Tanbre — with the suit alleging they processed coltan smuggled through Rwanda after armed groups seized mines in the eastern DRC, and that this material entered Apple’s supply chain. The complaint also cites a University of Nottingham study identifying forced and child labor at sites linked to Apple suppliers.15Reuters. US Group Sues Apple Over Congo Conflict Minerals
The relief sought is limited: an injunction against the marketing conduct and reimbursement of legal costs. The suit does not seek monetary damages or class certification.15Reuters. US Group Sues Apple Over Congo Conflict Minerals The case was pending as of mid-2026.
Apple’s Response
Apple has called the 2025 allegations “baseless” and disputes any suggestion that it benefits from forced labor or unsafe mining. The company has stated that it instructed suppliers to stop sourcing tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold from the DRC and Rwanda after independent auditing became impractical in the region, and it says 99% of the cobalt in its batteries now comes from recycled materials.11Al Jazeera. Why Has DRC Filed Criminal Charges Against Apple Over Conflict Minerals15Reuters. US Group Sues Apple Over Congo Conflict Minerals
In a May 2026 SEC filing, Apple said there was “no reasonable basis for concluding that any smelters or refiners of 3TG identified in our supply chain as of December 31, 2025, directly or indirectly financed or benefited armed groups” in the DRC or neighboring countries. The company reported that 100% of its identified smelters and refiners participate in annual independent third-party audits and that none failed those audits during 2025.16AppleInsider. Apples Latest Conflict Mineral Report Contradicts Previous Complaints Over Their Use
Why the Lawsuits Keep Coming
The DRC holds roughly 70% of the world’s cobalt reserves.7ABC News. US Court Absolves Top Tech Companies in Congos Child Labor Case Most of it is extracted by industrial mining, but more than 10% of global supply comes from artisanal and small-scale operations where conditions are worst.17NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. Cobalt Mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo A 2023 U.S. Department of Labor study estimated that 78% of employed cobalt workers in the DRC experience forced labor, affecting between 67,000 and 80,000 adult workers. About two-thirds of artisanal-site workers reported children present at their worksites, 72% of miners reported being hurt or sick from their work, and fewer than a third used any protective equipment.18U.S. Department of Labor. Forced Labor in Cobalt Mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo A 2016 Amnesty International investigation found children as young as seven working in cobalt mining without basic protective gear.19Amnesty International. Child Labour Behind Smart Phone and Electric Car Batteries
U.S. law leaves a large gap. Section 1502 of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to disclose whether their products contain tin, tantalum, tungsten, or gold from the DRC or neighboring countries and to describe their due diligence.20U.S. SEC. SEC Adopts Rule for Disclosing Use of Conflict Minerals The rule does not require companies to stop sourcing from the region, and a 2024 Government Accountability Office report found no empirical evidence it decreased violence in eastern Congo; 62% of companies conducting due diligence still reported being “unable to determine” the origin of their minerals.21U.S. Government Accountability Office. Conflict Minerals Report Cobalt is not covered by the Dodd-Frank conflict minerals provision at all.19Amnesty International. Child Labour Behind Smart Phone and Electric Car Batteries The European Union has moved further, adopting the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive in 2024, with compliance deadlines starting in 2027 for the largest firms.22Resources for the Future. Corporate Due Diligence, Auto Industry and Battery Supply Chains
That combination — enormous demand for Congolese minerals, documented abuses in the mines, and U.S. disclosure rules without teeth — is why the litigation has kept coming even after each defeat. The 2024 appeals ruling closed off TVPRA suits against buyers who deal at arm’s length with foreign suppliers. The DRC’s European criminal complaints and the 2025 D.C. consumer-protection case are attempts to work around that closure with different laws and different theories, and their outcomes will shape whether U.S. and European courts ever recognize any legal duty running from tech buyers to the people who dig the minerals inside their products.