USA Law and Practice Contributed by: Michael G. Congiu and Gillian Gilbert, Littler
• supplier codes of conduct; • corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports; • public business principles; and • disclosures made under the California Trans - parency in Supply Chains Act; • industry-wide commitments to ethical sourc - ing, to which some defendants were signato - ries The lawsuits claim that by omitting material information about labour practices, the compa - nies misled consumers and violated their legal obligations under California law. Sample case: Wirth & Wagner v. Mars, Inc., No. 15-cv-1470, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14552 (C.D. Cal.) On 10 September 2015, plaintiffs Christina Wirth and Adam Wagner filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Mars, Inc., alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Con - sumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and False Advertising Law (FAL). The case centres on Mars’ Iams brand cat food, which contains sea - food sourced from Southeast Asia, specifically the waters between Thailand and Indonesia. Allegations of forced labour in the supply chain Mars sources seafood for its Iams products through its Thai partner, Thai Union Frozen Prod - ucts PCL. Thai Union procures fish from canner - ies that rely on large “motherships” , which in turn collect seafood from smaller fishing boats. These smaller vessels, which rarely return to port, have been linked to forced labour practices by both the U.S. Department of Labor and investigative journalism reports. The plaintiffs describe these working conditions as dangerous and inhumane. According to the complaint, once the fish is col - lected by the motherships, it becomes mixed with other seafood, making it impossible to
trace whether any specific product contains fish caught using forced labour. Failure to disclose and consumer harm The plaintiffs argue that Mars failed to disclose the likelihood that forced labour was used in its supply chain – both on product packaging and on its corporate websites. They claim that Mars had a duty to disclose this information due to its superior knowledge of its supply chain and its extensive experience in sourcing and marketing seafood-based pet food. Wirth and Wagner allege they were harmed by this omission, stating they would not have purchased Iams products – or would have paid less – had they known about the potential use of forced labour in the supply chain. This case, along with the other California con - sumer protection lawsuits, was ultimately dis - missed but highlights a unique pathway to courts for consumers. Chiquita terrorism financing litigation Background In 2007, Chiquita Brands International pleaded guilty to making over USD1.7 million in payments to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colom - bia (AUC), a designated terrorist organisation. Although Chiquita recorded these as “security payments” , it admitted receiving no actual secu - rity services in return. Following the plea, hundreds of plaintiffs – rela - tives of individuals killed by the AUC – filed law - suits in US courts. They alleged that Chiquita’s financial support to the AUC constituted action - able torts under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), and other legal theories, including Colombian and state
130 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook