August 7, 2025
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.
Read Understanding Labor Trafficking Laws as Litigation Surges.