With an increase in labor trafficking litigation, this article provides an overview of recent examples as well as the elements needed to prove a claim. With this knowledge, companies can implement proper policies and procedures to defend against a labor trafficking allegation, should one arise.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581–1597, is a federal statute addressing human trafficking, including labor trafficking and forced labor. While the TVPRA initially focused on criminal liability for traffickers, Congress expanded its reach to include a civil remedy for victims. Especially important is the “beneficiary” or “venture” liability provision, which allows victims to bring civil actions not only against direct perpetrators but also against entities that knowingly benefit from participation in ventures that engage in trafficking or forced labor.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a), a victim may bring a civil action against “the perpetrator (or whoever knowingly benefits, or attempts or conspires to benefit, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of this chapter).” This provision has become a focal point for litigation against companies alleged to have benefitted from labor trafficking in their supply chains or through contractors.
Recent trends in labor trafficking lawsuits
The last few years have seen a surge in Section 1595 litigation targeting companies for alleged labor trafficking in their supply chains.
Examples include:
- Doe v. Starbucks (United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:25-cv-01261): Plaintiffs alleged that Starbucks knowingly benefited from forced labor and trafficking on Brazilian coffee farms, citing deceptive recruitment, debt bondage, and abusive working conditions. The complaint emphasized Starbucks’ long-term relationship with a supplier cooperative and alleged that Starbucks’ monitoring program was ineffective. Starbucks has until Sept. 1, 2025, to file a Motion to Dismiss.
- Bumble Bee Foods (United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:25-cv-00583): Indonesian migrant fishers alleged that Bumble Bee Foods benefited from forced labor and human trafficking on tuna fishing vessels supplying the U.S. market. The complaint detailed physical violence, debt bondage, and wage theft, and referenced widespread reports of forced labor in the global tuna industry. Bumble Bee Foods moved to dismiss the Complaint on June 2, 2025.
. . .
Knowledge, actual or constructive
The TVPRA requires that the defendant knew or should have known that the venture engaged in trafficking or forced labor. Courts have found that the knowledge must relate to the specific venture at issue, not to the industry or region as a whole. In Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood, 35 F.4th 1159 (9th Cir. 2022) the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals explained that “sweeping generalities about the [relevant] industry are too attenuated to support an inference that [the defendant] knew or should have known of the specifically alleged TVPRA violations at the [relevant facility].”
The court rejected the notion that evidence, such as government and NGO reports about widespread labor abuses in the Thai shrimp industry, was sufficient to establish knowledge that the defendant knew or should have known about abuses at the particular factory at issue.
Cohen Milstein’s benefits team struck a $14.75 million deal with Citgo to end an outdated mortality data suit and secured a $7.9 million settlement in a 401(k) mismanagement case, earning the firm a place among the 2025 Law360 Benefit Groups of the Year.
Michelle Yau, who chairs Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC’s employee benefits and ERISA practice group, pointed to the $7.9 million settlement her team secured with George Weiss Associates Inc. that was finalized in September 2025 as one of the practice group’s most impressive achievements of the year.
She chose it not only because the recovery was so strong — class members walked away with whopping individual payouts estimated at an average of $26,000 each — but because she had never before dealt with the mix of allegations at play.
A class of retirees accused the hedge fund and owner George A. Weiss of not only investing their savings into risky funds, but also of funneling 100% of its employees’ retirement savings into its proprietary funds, which Yau said created an unprecedented mix of mismanagement, diversification and self-dealing issues.
As the case was being litigated, the hedge fund and its owner also declared bankruptcy. This created another challenge for Yau and her team — having to go before the bankruptcy court in order to ensure her clients saw a recovery. Ultimately, she said, she successfully convinced a judge that her clients deserved payment under an insurance policy, amid other creditors also seeking payment.
“I appeared before two different bankruptcy judges explaining what our claims were and how we needed to preserve them for the class,” Yau said. “To state the obvious, I’m not a bankruptcy lawyer. But I definitely feel like after this experience, I could at least play one on TV.”
Yau also highlighted her clients’ $14.75 million recovery, finalized in January 2025, in a class action claiming Citgo Petroleum Corp. shorted retirees on benefit payouts by using outdated mortality data from the 1970s to calculate how much they were owed. This incorrect data informed how Citgo converted retirees’ single life annuity benefits to joint and survivor annuity benefits, which would provide payments to a retiree’s spouse in the event of their death, the retirees claimed.
Those who retired within six years of the lawsuit’s filing recovered 87% of their estimated losses — double the highest recovery rate secured in any similar mortality data case so far, the firm said. Yau said this outcome was particularly rewarding because while the claims behind the case were fairly simple, the math used to assess the pension calculations is complicated and difficult for the average worker to sort out on their own.
“I personally, and my team, feel very comfortable fighting through the numbers to see how retirees are getting underpaid, and then proving that to the court if need be,” Yau said. “I think that’s why these cases are so meaningful to us, because we can see clear as day the underpayment.”
Yau said her team, as demonstrated in the Citgo case, doesn’t bluff when they prepare for trial in these complex ERISA cases. The class struck a deal with Citgo just weeks before the case was set to go to a bench trial. Yau said she thinks the strength of the settlements the benefits practice group has been able to secure for her clients is the direct result of her team’s commitment to try these cases in an area of law where trials don’t often take place.
That commitment also sets Cohen Milstein’s benefits group apart from its competitors, she said.
“We just work harder than anyone else,” Yau said. “We leave everything out on the field.”
A certified class of participants in a barbecue company’s employee stock ownership program is seeking assurance that a $15 million settlement among the U.S. Department of Labor, the company’s executives and the ESOP’s caretaker won’t affect a coming trial on the matter.
The certified class in the W BBQ Holdings Inc. ESOP filed a letter Monday in its Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit requesting assurance from the court. The letter requests information about the DOL’s consent order and judgment in a different enforcement case, which the DOL separately docketed Friday. U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote signed off on the deal on Tuesday.
The DOL filed an enforcement case in December 2024 against Argent Trust Co. and Herbert Wetanson and Gregor Wetanson, the president and vice president of W BBQ Holdings Inc., aimed at the same $99 million private stock purchase by the ESOP in 2016 that the certified class targeted in 2022 with its suit. The consent judgment proposed Friday came after the DOL, Argent and the executives told the court Jan. 30 they’d reached a deal to end the case.
The class, which won certification in May, asked in its letter filed Monday for the court to confirm that the deal wouldn’t bar it from bringing claims in their dispute.
. . .
The class is represented by Michelle C. Yau, Daniel R. Sutter, Caroline E. Bressman, Elizabeth McDermott, Michael Eisenkraft and Ryan A. Wheeler of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC will represent a proposed class of Perrigo Company PLC investors who allege the company failed to disclose critical issues with infant formula operations that it purchased from Nestlé and caused stock prices to drop as the issues came to light.
In a Friday order in Manhattan federal court, U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett appointed Cohen Milstein lead counsel for the proposed class, finding that the firm’s pension fund client had the greatest financial interest in the suit with about $2.8 million in alleged losses.
“[The International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund]’s selected counsel, Cohen Milstein, is an established firm with significant experience representing plaintiffs in complex securities fraud class actions, there is no evidence that Teamsters 710 has interests adverse to the class, and the court is confident that the nearly $2.8 million in claimed losses will motivate Teamsters 710 to vigorously prosecute the case,” Judge Garnett said Friday.
Cohen Milstein’s client beat out three other would-be lead plaintiffs for the chance to represent the class.
. . .
On Tuesday, Carol Gilden, an attorney for the pension fund, told Law360 via email that “We are pleased the court appointed our client Teamster 710 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved the firm as lead counsel.”
“We look forward to pursuing this action and holding Perrigo and its officers accountable for the allegedly false and misleading statements made to investors regarding the company’s infant formula business,” Gilden said.
. . .
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund is represented by Michael Eisenkraft, Carol V. Gilden, Steven J. Toll and Claire Marsden of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
Fighters who accuse the Ultimate Fighting Championship of suppressing wages asked a Nevada federal judge to order a third-party talent agency to explain why it should not be held in contempt for violating a discovery order.
The fighters, led by Kajan Johnson, said Dominance MMA LLC has inexplicably refused to comply with an August 2025 court order that directed it to turn over materials responsive to a half-dozen discovery requests.
According to the fighters, Dominance MMA initially went along with agreements related to search terms, lists of devices that could contain responsive materials, and schedules. But it then started to delay and, in early January, indicated it would not produce any materials without a second court order.
…
Plaintiffs are represented by Joseph R. Saveri, Christopher K.L. Young, Kevin E. Rayhill, Itak Moradi and T. Brent Jordan of Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP, Eric L. Cramer, Michael Dell’Angelo, Patrick F. Madden and Joshua P. Davis of Berger Montague PC, Benjamin D. Brown, Richard A. Koffman and Daniel H. Silverman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, W. Joseph Bruckner, Brian D. Clark and Kyle Pozan of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP and Michael J. Gayan of Clagget & Sykes.
Pegasystems has agreed to pay $7 million to settle three shareholder derivative suits in Massachusetts state and federal courts alleging the software company’s top officials sat on details of a 2020 trade secrets suit that led to a now-overturned $2 billion verdict.
The deal, if approved by judges in the two courts, would resolve claims against Pegasystems founder and CEO Alan Trefler and board members stemming from the suit filed by competitor Appian Corp. in Virginia.
The plaintiffs alleged in the three cases that the board’s failure to prevent alleged corporate espionage by Pegasystems employees, and a “corporate culture that encouraged and protected illegal activity and unethical conduct in pursuit of profits,” which led to the lawsuit, eroded the value of the company and their shares.
…
Jayne Birch and Robert Garfield are represented by Richard Speirs of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Peretz Bronstein of Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, Rusty E. Glenn and Brett D. Stecker of Shuman Glenn & Stecker, and Michele Carino of Greenwich Legal Associates LLC.
Former nuclear power plant workers urged a Maryland federal judge not to let Constellation Energy, DTE Energy, Duke Energy, NextEra Energy and others duck a proposed class action alleging a wage-fixing conspiracy that allegedly spanned “100% of the nuclear power generation labor market.”
In a series of opposition briefs filed Friday, the former workers said their amended complaint has all the necessary detail to survive motions to dismiss contesting their allegations of a 23-year conspiracy to “suppress wages, salaries, bonuses, and benefits.” According to their main brief, that includes statements of former human resources executives admitting that the companies discussed and collaborated on compensation, details on the sharing of compensation data and collective bargaining agreements and “parallel conduct” showing pay increases in lockstep.
…
The workers are represented by Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Berger Montague PC and Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. must face a trimmed class action pursued by employee 401(k) plan participants alleging mismanagement, an Ohio federal judge ruled in an opinion unsealed Monday, telling the parties to prepare for a bench trial on the surviving claims.
…
Kai H. Richter of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, an attorney for the class, in a statement to Law360 on Monday applauded Judge Morrison’s “careful attention to the important issues raised in this case.”
“We are pleased with the court’s ruling denying Nationwide’s motion to exclude our experts and denying its motion for summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction claims for the period at issue,” Richter said. “We wholeheartedly agree with the court’s observation that the ‘dissonance’ in Nationwide’s position ‘demands further exploration,’ and look forward to the upcoming trial.”
…
The class is represented by Kai H. Richter, Michelle C. Yau and Daniel R. Sutter of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Eric H. Zagrans of Zagrans Law Firm LLC.
A Missouri federal judge granted final approval for $42 million worth of class action settlements to resolve antitrust claims accusing the National Association of Realtors and multiple brokerages of conspiring to charge home sellers with excessive broker commission fees.
In his order filed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Bough approved settlements for claims lodged against William Raveis Real Estate Inc., Hanna Holdings Inc., Windermere Real Estate Services Company Inc. Exit Realty Corp. International, Exit Realty Corp. USA and William L. Lyon & Associates Inc. after granting preliminary approval back in October 2025.
. . .
The class is represented by Alexander Aiken, Beatrice Franklin, Floyd Short, Marc M. Seltzer and Matthew R. Berry of Susman Godfrey LLP, Robert A. Braun, Daniel H. Silverman and Sabrina Merold of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brandon J.B. Boulware and Jeremy M. Suhr of Boulware Law LLC, Eric L. Dirks and Michael A. Williams of Williams Dirks Dameron LLC, Michael S. Ketchmark and Scott A. McCreight of Ketchmark & McCreight PC and Steve W. Berman, Jeannie Evans, Nathan Emmons and Rio Pierce of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
Consumer groups pursuing price-fixing allegations against the nation’s leading frozen potato product producers and certain others have urged an Illinois federal judge to let their claims proceed, arguing they’ve plausibly outlined a “classic antitrust story” that should be allowed to enter the evidence-gathering stage.
The plaintiff groups argued Wednesday that they’ve alleged more than enough circumstantial evidence for U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings to infer that the companies commanding 98% of the nation’s frozen potato product market illegally raised their prices during economic hard times, kept them high once those struggles eased and shared sensitive information to help facilitate their scheme.
…
The indirect purchasing consumers are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro LLP.