The Congo cobalt child labor lawsuit filed against Apple, Alphabet, Dell, Microsoft, and Tesla in December 2019 was dismissed by a federal district court in 2021 and that dismissal was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on March 5, 2024. The same nonprofit that brought the original case has since refiled against Apple alone under District of Columbia consumer protection law, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo has opened its own criminal complaints against Apple subsidiaries in Europe. The original claim is over. The broader legal fight is not.
What the 2019 Case Alleged
The complaint was filed on December 15, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the nonprofit International Rights Advocates on behalf of 14 pseudonymous plaintiffs, all guardians of children killed in mining accidents or children who survived with permanent injuries.1Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. IRAdvocates Files Forced Child Labor Case Against Tech Giants The defendants were Apple, Alphabet, Dell Technologies, Microsoft, and Tesla.2Justia. John Doe 1 v. Apple Inc., No. 21-7135
The plaintiffs alleged the companies “knowingly benefited” from a supply chain that depended on forced child labor in the DRC’s artisanal cobalt mines. Children as young as nine were described as working in hand-dug tunnels prone to collapse and carrying heavy loads of cobalt ore for as little as 75 cents a day. One child was buried alive in a tunnel collapse at a mine operated by Kamoto Copper Company, controlled by Glencore, in April 2019, and his body was never recovered. Another plaintiff, identified as John Doe 1, began working in the mines at age nine and was paralyzed from the chest down after falling into a tunnel.3The Guardian. Apple and Google Named in US Lawsuit Over Congolese Child Cobalt Mining Deaths
The legal theory rested on the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which allows civil suits against parties who “participate in a venture” using forced labor. Plaintiffs also brought common law claims for unjust enrichment, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Glencore, Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt Company, and Eurasian Resources Group were named as the cobalt suppliers whose operations allegedly relied on child miners.2Justia. John Doe 1 v. Apple Inc., No. 21-7135
Why the Courts Threw It Out
The district court dismissed the case on November 2, 2021, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a viable claim.4International Rights Advocates. Cobalt Case A unanimous D.C. Circuit affirmed on March 5, 2024.2Justia. John Doe 1 v. Apple Inc., No. 21-7135
The appeal turned on what it means to “participate in a venture” under federal anti-trafficking law. The judges concluded that purchasing cobalt “through the global supply chain” was not a shared enterprise with the suppliers. Buying and selling at arm’s length, the court held, is not a joint undertaking.5CNN. Big Tech Child Labor Congo Lawsuit The court found the plaintiffs had standing to seek damages but not injunctive relief, reasoning that it was speculative that an order against the five companies would actually stop forced labor in the DRC. The common law claims were dismissed as well.2Justia. John Doe 1 v. Apple Inc., No. 21-7135
As of mid-2026, IRAdvocates has said it is “exploring all available options for appeal and planning further actions,” but no petition to the Supreme Court appears to have been filed.4International Rights Advocates. Cobalt Case
What the Case Documented About the Mines
The DRC produces roughly 70% of the world’s cobalt, a mineral essential to the lithium-ion batteries in phones, laptops, and electric vehicles. Artisanal and small-scale mining accounts for an estimated 30% of the country’s cobalt output. Workers dig by hand in poorly supported tunnels with minimal protective equipment.6U.S. Department of Labor. DRC Forced Labor Cobalt Report
A 2023 U.S. Department of Labor study found that 78% of employed cobalt workers experienced conditions meeting the definition of forced labor, translating to between 67,000 and 80,000 workers. Common indicators included the inability to refuse hazardous work, wage withholding, and restrictions on movement. Some 84% of workers reported exposure to dust or strong fumes without protection, and 63% had been injured or made ill by their work.6U.S. Department of Labor. DRC Forced Labor Cobalt Report UNICEF estimated in 2014 that approximately 40,000 children worked in mines across southern DRC, some as young as seven, earning between one and two dollars a day.7Amnesty International. This Is What We Die For
The supply chain between those mines and the tech companies is layered. Miners sell ore to traders, who sell to larger companies for smelting and processing, and much of the material passes through Chinese-owned refineries. Chinese investments control roughly 70% of the DRC’s mining sector, and an estimated 90% of Congolese cobalt is processed in China before reaching battery and electronics manufacturers.6U.S. Department of Labor. DRC Forced Labor Cobalt Report That distance is what the court leaned on when it called the tech companies buyers, not participants.
The Cases That Followed
Two separate legal tracks opened after the dismissal. The first was brought by the DRC government itself. Lawyers from Amsterdam & Partners sent a warning letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook in April 2024, accusing the company of purchasing minerals smuggled from the DRC into Rwanda and calling Apple’s supply chains “tainted by the blood of the Congolese people.”8CBS News. Apple Blood Minerals Africa DRC On December 16 and 17, 2024, criminal complaints were filed against Apple subsidiaries in France and Belgium, accusing the company of covering up war crimes, laundering smuggled minerals, and engaging in deceptive commercial practices.9Le Monde. DRC Files Lawsuits Accusing Apple of Covering Up War Crimes French prosecutors closed their investigation in December 2025, citing a lack of evidence.10Reuters. US Group Sues Apple Over Congo Conflict Minerals In Belgium, an investigating judge was appointed in January 2025 and that inquiry remains open.11Democracy Now. DRC Files Criminal Complaint Against Apple in Europe Over Conflict Minerals
The second track is a new civil suit from the same nonprofit behind the 2019 case. IRAdvocates filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on November 25, 2025, targeting Apple alone under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act.12International Rights Advocates. International Rights Advocates v. Apple Inc. The complaint alleges Apple engages in false and deceptive marketing by claiming its products are “environmentally responsible and ethically sourced” while its supply chain includes minerals linked to child labor, forced labor, and armed conflict. The minerals at issue are cobalt, tin, tantalum, and tungsten.10Reuters. US Group Sues Apple Over Congo Conflict Minerals
The complaint names Umicore and GEM as cobalt suppliers sourcing from the DRC, and identifies three Chinese smelters, Ningxia Orient, JiuJiang JinXin, and Jiujiang Tanbre, as processors of coltan that IRAdvocates alleges was smuggled through Rwanda after armed groups seized mines in eastern Congo.13Trade Law Daily. IRAdvocates Sues Apple for Allegedly Lying About Ethical Mineral Sourcing Apple’s own 2024 supply chain disclosures list all three smelters as partners.14AppleInsider. Apple’s Latest Conflict Mineral Report Contradicts Previous Complaints The suit does not seek monetary damages or class certification. It asks for a court order stopping Apple’s allegedly deceptive marketing and reimbursement of legal costs.15Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. USA Rights Group Sues Apple Alleging Use of Conflict Minerals The case is pending, with no rulings reported as of mid-2026.12International Rights Advocates. International Rights Advocates v. Apple Inc.
What Apple Says
Apple has denied the allegations across each proceeding. In the 2019 case, the company and its co-defendants said their role was limited to purchasing cobalt through established supply chains and that they enforce strict policies against child labor. Microsoft stated in October 2020 that it is “committed to responsible and ethical sourcing of materials” and does not “tolerate child labour” in its supply chain.4International Rights Advocates. Cobalt Case
Responding to the DRC complaints and the 2025 consumer protection suit, Apple called the allegations “baseless” and said it enforces “the industry’s strongest sourcing standards.” The company said it instructed suppliers to suspend sourcing of tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold from the DRC and Rwanda because of concerns about the reliability of independent auditing in the region.16BBC. DRC Files Criminal Complaints Against Apple Over Blood Minerals An Apple spokesman said that 99% of the cobalt in Apple-designed batteries comes from recycled sources. IRAdvocates disputes that figure, alleging in its complaint that Apple’s accounting methods for recycled content “allow mixing with ore from conflict zones.”10Reuters. US Group Sues Apple Over Congo Conflict Minerals Apple’s SEC-filed conflict minerals report describes the 100% recycled cobalt goal as a “forward-looking statement” rather than a current achievement.17Apple Inc. Apple Conflict Minerals Report
The Regulatory Gap Behind the Ruling
One reason these lawsuits have struggled in U.S. courts is that existing law does not impose a clear duty on tech companies to trace their cobalt to its ultimate source. Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires due diligence reporting for “conflict minerals,” meaning tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold. Cobalt is not on that list.18Global Witness. Conflict Minerals Eastern Congo Cobalt sourcing sits outside the specific framework Congress built for minerals tied to armed conflict in the DRC.
Europe is moving in a different direction. The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive entered into force in July 2024 and will require large companies to identify and address human rights and environmental harms across their global supply chains. Amendments adopted in late 2025 set the scope at companies with more than 5,000 employees and over 1.5 billion euros in annual turnover. EU member states must transpose the rules by July 2028, with full application starting in July 2029.19European Commission. Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Companies the size of Apple would fall within scope, opening avenues of liability that U.S. courts have so far declined to recognize.