On November 25, 2024, International Rights Advocates — a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit founded in 2018 by executive director Scott Gilmore — filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc. in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, accusing the tech giant of sourcing conflict minerals tied to child labor, forced labor, and armed militias in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. The minerals in question — cobalt, tin, tantalum, and tungsten — allegedly passed through Chinese smelters Ningxia Orient, JiuJiang JinXin, and Jiujiang Tanbre, which processed coltan smuggled from DRC mines controlled by the M23 rebel group, then routed through Rwanda. The lawsuit doesn’t seek money damages, but demands a court ruling that Apple’s public claims of ethical sourcing violate D.C. consumer protection laws, plus an injunction against what IRAdvocates call "deceptive marketing."
How the Allegations Connect to Real-World Violence
The case hinges on documented smuggling routes first exposed by Global Witness and later confirmed by United Nations Security Council Group of Experts. Since early 2024, the M23 rebellion — backed, according to the U.S. State Department and DRC authorities, by Rwanda — has seized control of key mining zones in North Kivu, including the Twangiza gold mine. By October 2024, at least 500 kilograms of gold had been looted, according to Africa Business Insider. The UN estimates that armed groups in eastern Congo now earn $150 million annually from mineral sales, funding attacks that have killed over 3,000 civilians and displaced more than 600,000 since January 2024.Even more troubling, a January 2025 study from the University of Nottingham found direct evidence of children as young as 11 working in artisanal mines supplying minerals to Apple’s chain. These aren’t abstract claims — they’re field reports from miners who described being paid in food, not wages, and forced to work 16-hour days under armed guard.
Apple’s Defense: Recycled Cobalt and Supplier Audits
Apple Inc., headquartered in Cupertino, California, responded swiftly. On November 26, Trystan Kosmynka, Apple’s Senior Director of Communications, issued a statement calling the allegations "baseless." Apple says it instructed suppliers to stop sourcing from the DRC and Rwanda in May 2024, after M23 took Twangiza. It also highlights that 76% of the cobalt used in its devices last year came from recycled sources — a figure far higher than any other major tech firm.Apple’s 2024 Supplier Responsibility Report, released June 12, 2024, claims 147 of its 182 global smelters and refiners underwent third-party audits. But here’s the gap: the report doesn’t disclose whether any facilities in Rwanda or eastern Congo were audited — a critical omission, since the UN and Global Witness have repeatedly flagged Rwanda as a transit hub for smuggled minerals. The company also points to its "industry-leading" Supplier Code of Conduct. But critics say codes mean little if enforcement is invisible.
A Pattern of Legal Pushback — And a Shifting Global Landscape
This isn’t Apple’s first rodeo. In September 2023, IRAdvocates sued Apple, Tesla, and others over cobalt sourcing — only to have the case dismissed by a U.S. federal court for lack of jurisdiction. Now, they’re trying again, this time under D.C.’s consumer protection statute, which allows suits for deceptive advertising even without class-action status.The legal pressure isn’t limited to the U.S. In June 2024, criminal complaints were filed in France and Belgium against Apple subsidiaries over conflict minerals and money laundering. France dropped its case on December 15, 2024, citing insufficient evidence, according to Copperbelt Katanga Mining. But Belgium’s probe remains open — and growing. Meanwhile, the Democratic Republic of Congo government, led by President Félix Tshisekedi, has tightened export controls since July 2024, trying to stop the flow of minerals through Rwanda.
Rwanda’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under Minister Vincent Biruta, denies backing M23 — a claim contradicted by the U.S., U.N., and DRC. The irony? Rwanda is one of the world’s top exporters of tantalum — a mineral used in smartphone capacitors — and nearly all of it claims to come from "legal" sources. But the UN’s 2023 report showed 60% of Rwanda’s tantalum exports had no verifiable origin.
What’s Next? The January 15 Hearing and Broader Implications
The case is now assigned to Judge Jennifer Schiffer in D.C. Superior Court. The first case management conference is set for January 15, 2025. If the judge allows discovery, IRAdvocates plans to subpoena Apple’s internal supply chain maps and audit records — documents the company has never fully released.This lawsuit arrives as the European Union’s Conflict Minerals Regulation tightens, and the U.S. SEC continues requiring annual Conflict Minerals Reports under Dodd-Frank. But enforcement remains patchy. Companies like Apple can tick boxes — publish reports, audit smelters — while the real mining sites stay dark.
What’s at stake isn’t just Apple’s reputation. It’s whether consumers can trust the "ethical tech" narrative. If the court finds Apple’s marketing misleading, it could set a precedent forcing every tech giant to prove, not just claim, their supply chains are clean.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does this lawsuit differ from Apple’s previous legal troubles over minerals?
This case is narrower and legally sharper. Unlike the 2023 federal dismissal, which failed on jurisdiction, this suit is filed in D.C. under consumer protection law — meaning Apple can be held accountable for what it tells customers, even if no laws were broken in sourcing. It targets marketing claims, not just supply chain conduct, making it harder to dismiss on technical grounds.
Why does Rwanda keep appearing in these reports?
Rwanda has no significant tin, tantalum, or cobalt mines, yet it exports more of these minerals than most African nations. The UN and Global Witness have documented since 2019 that minerals from eastern DRC are smuggled across the border, repackaged as Rwandan, and shipped globally. Rwanda’s government denies involvement, but its mineral exports surged 300% between 2021 and 2024 — a spike that aligns with the M23’s territorial gains.
What’s the real impact on miners in the DRC?
Children as young as 11 work in North Kivu’s mines without safety gear, paid in rice or cashew nuts. Armed groups tax miners, steal their tools, and kill those who resist. The University of Nottingham’s 2025 study interviewed 87 miners — 43% reported being forced to work under threat of violence. For every iPhone sold, there’s a real human cost — one that Apple’s audits rarely capture.
Is Apple’s 76% recycled cobalt claim enough to clear its name?
It’s a significant step — no other major tech company comes close. But recycled cobalt doesn’t eliminate demand for newly mined material. Apple still needs 24% virgin cobalt, and that’s where the risk lies. If even a small portion of that comes from smuggled DRC ore, the ethical claim collapses. Transparency isn’t just about percentages — it’s about tracing every gram.
What could happen if Apple loses this case?
If the court rules against Apple, it could force the company to publicly disclose its entire mineral supply chain — including smelters, transport routes, and audit failures. That would be unprecedented. It might also trigger similar lawsuits in the EU and Canada, and pressure the SEC to enforce its Conflict Minerals Rule more aggressively. Apple’s brand could take a hit, especially among ethically conscious consumers.
Why didn’t France’s case succeed, and does that mean Apple is in the clear?
France dropped its case because prosecutors couldn’t prove Apple directly knew the minerals were conflict-sourced — not because the minerals weren’t linked to violence. Legal standards for criminal intent are much higher than for consumer fraud. This D.C. case doesn’t need to prove criminal intent — just that Apple misled customers. That’s a lower bar, and potentially more dangerous for Apple.
