Congo Conflict Minerals: U.S. Group Sues Apple — 26 Nov 2025

Congo Conflict Minerals: U.S. Group Sues Apple Over Ethical Supply‑Chain Allegations

On 26 November 2025, a Washington‑based U.S. advocacy group, International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates), filed a lawsuit against Apple in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The complaint alleges that Apple uses minerals in its supply chain linked to human‑rights abuses and armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda — including cobalt, tin, tantalum, and tungsten — despite Apple’s public statements asserting otherwise.

According to the lawsuit, these so-called “conflict minerals” allegedly pass through Chinese smelters such as Ningxia Orient, JiuJiang JinXin, and JiuJiang Tanbre before entering Apple’s global supply chain. The complaint references a 2025 study by the University of Nottingham which reportedly found evidence of forced and child labour at mining sites connected to Apple’s suppliers.

This legal action follows previous cases:

In December 2024, the Democratic Republic of Congo filed criminal complaints in France and Belgium against Apple’s European subsidiaries over alleged use of “blood minerals,” including claims of smuggling and laundering minerals from conflict zones.

In February 2025, French prosecutors dropped the case citing insufficient evidence, while Belgian investigations are reportedly ongoing.

Apple has repeatedly stated that, as of 31 December 2024, all identified smelters and refiners in its supply chain underwent independent third‑party audits for 3TG (tin, tungsten, tantalum, gold) minerals. Nevertheless, IRAdvocates insists that Apple’s supply chain continues to include materials tied to conflict zones. The lawsuit seeks a court declaration that Apple violated consumer‑protection laws and an injunction to end what it describes as deceptive marketing practices, without requesting monetary damages or class certification.

Human‑rights organisations have long documented that mines in eastern Congo — rich in cobalt, tin, and tungsten — are controlled by armed groups exploiting child and forced labour, displacing civilians, and using mineral profits to fund conflict. These “blood minerals” often enter international supply chains after being laundered through neighbouring countries like Rwanda.

If the lawsuit succeeds, it could set a precedent holding global tech companies accountable not only for direct operations, but also for ethical and human‑rights issues embedded in their supply chains. It could push the tech industry toward greater transparency and compel companies to reassess sourcing practices, beyond compliance audits, in respect of human lives and rights.

For consumers, the case serves as a reminder that the production of high-end devices may be linked to exploitation and conflict, encouraging scrutiny of the true cost of “tech convenience.”

The IRAdvocates lawsuit may pave the way for a more ethical model of global supply‑chain accountability — one where corporations are responsible not only for profit, but for human dignity.