Rights Group Sues Apple Over African Supply Chain

Tech giant Apple faces a renewed legal challenge. A human rights organization has filed a lawsuit questioning the ethics of the company’s supply chain.

The complaint accuses Apple of using conflict minerals. It alleges these materials are extracted through forced labor in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda.

The lawsuit was filed in Washington. It claims Apple’s supply chain remains tainted despite public promises. Specifically, the group links cobalt and coltan to severe abuses. These include child labor and the financing of armed militias.

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction. They want to stop what they call deceptive marketing practices. They argue Apple misleads consumers about the origins of materials in their devices.

Allegations of Smuggled Minerals

A central part of the complaint involves coltan. This mineral is critical for electronics. The lawsuit claims armed groups have seized mines in eastern Congo.

From there, smugglers allegedly move the minerals across the border into Rwanda. Then, three specific Chinese smelters process the materials. Finally, these minerals enter Apple’s manufacturing network.

The advocacy group argues that this flow of resources causes harm. It directly contributes to violence and labor abuses in the region.

Apple’s Defense

Apple has firmly rejected the accusations. The company dismissed the lawsuit as “baseless.”

Apple argues that it enforces strict sourcing standards. Furthermore, it has made strides in reducing reliance on mined minerals.

According to Apple, 99 percent of the cobalt in its batteries comes from recycled materials. Additionally, the company stated it issued directives to suppliers earlier this year. They were told to suspend sourcing from Congo and Rwanda due to escalating violence.

The tech firm maintains its innocence. It cites independent third-party audits. These reports reportedly show no evidence that Apple funds armed groups or uses forced labor.

This legal confrontation follows a similar case. The same group filed a previous lawsuit, which US courts dismissed last year.