5 ms·

Regarding the legal merits of the case, I notice that don't see any coverage of a proposed theory of liability in the article. The lawsuit text is more informat

Regarding the legal merits of the case, I notice that don't see any coverage of a proposed theory of liability in the article. The lawsuit text is more informative, pointing at a bunch of sections of US Code about forced labor, trafficking, and sale into voluntary servitude — for instance, 18 U.S. Code § 1589 which notes, "(b) Whoever knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in the providing or obtaining of labor or services by any of the means described in subsection (a), knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the venture has engaged in the providing or obtaining of labor or services by any of such means, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d)." But I'm not at all certain the court is willing consider the purchase of goods on the world market to be equivalent to "participation" in this venture, even if the suit asserts that "The Cobalt Supply Chain Is a “Venture”". Is there meaningful precedent for interpreting a supply chain in this way?

shkkmo 7y ago
A quick search shows that past lawsuits against Nestle and other companies for child labor in their supply chain listed consumers as the plaintiffs claiming damage from false advertising and non -disclosure [1]. These cases have ended up being dismissed. The difference is that in this case the children and their families are the actual plaintiffs which presumably changes the legal merits. I still suspect that this case will also be dismissed. I think the point is that these lawsuits are intended to raise public awareness of the issue which will ideally put pressure the companies being sued to institute voluntary policing of their supply chain. Nestle, for example, has done a lot over the last decade to eliminate child labor in their supply chain. (Edit) It looks like there is a supreme Court precedent related to the Nestle case that held that child/family plaintiffs did have standing to sue for child labor in the supply chain [2] [1] https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2018/02/13/Nestle-sued-again-over-child-labor-in-cocoa-supply-chain https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2018/02/13/Nestle-... [2] https://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-gives-boost-child-slave-labor-055122768--finance.html https://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-gives-boost-child-sla...
- DSingularity 7y ago
  Raise public awareness? I think they are seeking remedy. Sad that the courts are so slanted in the favor of corporate interests. Why do these cases get dismissed?
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    Because they are seeking remedy from the wrong parties in a fungible market without proof of more direct involvement. It being in "corporate interest" doesn't mean it is wrong. To be frank they are acting a lot like extortionists.
    - Ericson2314 7y ago
      The legal system needs to catch up with the laundering effects of global and fungible markets. There are "know your customer" rules for other things. Eventually we need to get serious about goods' provenance.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      That's pretty harsh language to use against families whose children died mining the materials for your smart phone, electric bike and green energy grid. A "fungible market" does not make slavery ok, nor does it excuse child labor. Indeed, the availability of alternative sources would seem to make patronizing companies that support this type of bevaior more inexcusable.
      - fennecfoxen 7y ago
        Slavery is, of course, not okay. But tell me this: Are you confident that all your home electronics have zero slave-produced cobalt in it? If not, why not? The availability of alternative cobalt sources would seem to make this type of behavior inexcusable. What's this you say? You don't have a direct relationship with the cobalt mine? You buy your phone from some company, and you don't know their exact sources of components, or whether they switch suppliers from time to time? Gasp!
AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
Just for the sake of completeness, "knowingly" is a specific legalese term. It means you know the goods are coming from the prohibited source, but still decide to buy it. The total spectrum looks like this: - purposefully: you won't buy cobalt, unless it says "mined by slave children" on the tin - knowingly: you buy cobalt even if it says "mined by slave children" on the tin - recklessly: you know that 90% of world cobalt is mined by slave children. You hope that yours comes from the remaining 10% - negligently: you know that 10% of world cobalt is mined by slave children, so you decided to take a chance and bought yours without checking
- nooyurrsdey 7y ago
  Not sure I understand the difference between recklessly and negligently? Don't both amount to you not knowing and not wanting to find out?
  - zaarn 7y ago
    Negligent means you didn't know and didn't want to, reckless meant you didn't know but accepted the possibility that it could happen or the possibility was extremely high.
- afarrell 7y ago
  Isn't there another level which is only sufficient for crime if it is a Strict Liability law? - accidentally: you know there's a risk of buying cobalt mined by slave children. So, you took the actions of a reasonable person to avoid that risk, but you failed.

shkkmo 7y ago

A quick search shows that past lawsuits against Nestle and other companies for child labor in their supply chain listed consumers as the plaintiffs claiming damage from false advertising and non -disclosure [1]. These cases have ended up being dismissed. The difference is that in this case the children and their families are the actual plaintiffs which presumably changes the legal merits. I still suspect that this case will also be dismissed. I think the point is that these lawsuits are intended to raise public awareness of the issue which will ideally put pressure the companies being sued to institute voluntary policing of their supply chain. Nestle, for example, has done a lot over the last decade to eliminate child labor in their supply chain. (Edit) It looks like there is a supreme Court precedent related to the Nestle case that held that child/family plaintiffs did have standing to sue for child labor in the supply chain [2] [1] https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2018/02/13/Nestle-sued-again-over-child-labor-in-cocoa-supply-chain https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2018/02/13/Nestle-... [2] https://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-gives-boost-child-slave-labor-055122768--finance.html https://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-gives-boost-child-sla...

DSingularity 7y ago
Raise public awareness? I think they are seeking remedy. Sad that the courts are so slanted in the favor of corporate interests. Why do these cases get dismissed?
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Because they are seeking remedy from the wrong parties in a fungible market without proof of more direct involvement. It being in "corporate interest" doesn't mean it is wrong. To be frank they are acting a lot like extortionists.
  - Ericson2314 7y ago
    The legal system needs to catch up with the laundering effects of global and fungible markets. There are "know your customer" rules for other things. Eventually we need to get serious about goods' provenance.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    That's pretty harsh language to use against families whose children died mining the materials for your smart phone, electric bike and green energy grid. A "fungible market" does not make slavery ok, nor does it excuse child labor. Indeed, the availability of alternative sources would seem to make patronizing companies that support this type of bevaior more inexcusable.
    - fennecfoxen 7y ago
      Slavery is, of course, not okay. But tell me this: Are you confident that all your home electronics have zero slave-produced cobalt in it? If not, why not? The availability of alternative cobalt sources would seem to make this type of behavior inexcusable. What's this you say? You don't have a direct relationship with the cobalt mine? You buy your phone from some company, and you don't know their exact sources of components, or whether they switch suppliers from time to time? Gasp!

AlexTWithBeard 7y ago

Just for the sake of completeness, "knowingly" is a specific legalese term. It means you know the goods are coming from the prohibited source, but still decide to buy it. The total spectrum looks like this: - purposefully: you won't buy cobalt, unless it says "mined by slave children" on the tin - knowingly: you buy cobalt even if it says "mined by slave children" on the tin - recklessly: you know that 90% of world cobalt is mined by slave children. You hope that yours comes from the remaining 10% - negligently: you know that 10% of world cobalt is mined by slave children, so you decided to take a chance and bought yours without checking

nooyurrsdey 7y ago
Not sure I understand the difference between recklessly and negligently? Don't both amount to you not knowing and not wanting to find out?
- zaarn 7y ago
  Negligent means you didn't know and didn't want to, reckless meant you didn't know but accepted the possibility that it could happen or the possibility was extremely high.
afarrell 7y ago
Isn't there another level which is only sufficient for crime if it is a Strict Liability law? - accidentally: you know there's a risk of buying cobalt mined by slave children. So, you took the actions of a reasonable person to avoid that risk, but you failed.