If you are trying to fix something, you need the right tool for the job. This basic principle is central to judging and especially important when judges are considering efforts to expand one of the most powerful constructs in the civil justice system: the class action. Over the past three years, the federal circuit courts and now the U.S. Supreme Court have weighed in on efforts to use class action lawsuits as a means to address the complex policy issue of forced labor in global supply chains. These courts have all reached the same conclusion: Class actions are not the right tool for the job.

This past term, the U.S. Supreme Court considered that issue in Nestle v. Doe, a long-running putative class action that posed the question of whether courts could read into the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) a cause of action against domestic corporations for labor abuses occurring on cocoa farms located in the Ivory Coast. The ATS does not authorize any claim against domestic corporations for this sort of extraterritorial activity. But several former workers on one of these farms nonetheless sued U.S.-based food companies in a putative class action asking the court to create a cause of action to hold these domestic corporations liable on an “aiding and abetting” theory.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]