The decision, handed down by Judge Ebony M Scott, clears the way for a consumer protection suit brought by the nonprofit International Rights Advocates (IRA) under the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA). The case alleges that the chocolate companies use deceptive marketing to portray their supply chains as ethical, despite evidence of hazardous child labour on West African cocoa farms that supply their products.
Advertisement
“The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendants’ representations – framed as commitments or accomplishments – could mislead consumers,” Judge Scott wrote in the opinion.
Key Rulings in the Decision:
- Lawsuit Proceeds Against Mars and Cargill: The judge found sufficient factual allegations that both companies made false or misleading public claims about child labour oversight in their supply chains. Examples include Mars’ ‘Responsible Cocoa’ campaign and Cargill’s claims of traceability and child labour monitoring.
- Partial Dismissal for Mondelēz: Claims against Mondelēz related to Cadbury products were dismissed because they are produced under license by Hershey in the U.S. Additionally, a 2019 YouTube video was excluded due to the statute of limitations.
- Jurisdiction Established: Despite being headquartered outside the District, all three corporations were found to be subject to D.C. jurisdiction because they sell products there and allegedly misled D.C. consumers.
- Free Speech Defence Rejected: The court firmly denied the companies’ argument that their statements were protected by the First Amendment, stating that commercial speech – including misleading sustainability claims – can be regulated under consumer protection law.
Wider Implications:
This ruling sets a powerful precedent for holding multinational corporations accountable for human rights abuses hidden within global supply chains. It affirms that “aspirational” language used in marketing – such as promises to eliminate child labour or commitments to sustainability – may be legally actionable if they mislead consumers.
It also reinforces the ability of public interest organisations like IRA to bring enforcement actions, even without individual consumer plaintiffs.
Fernando Morales-de la Cruz, a journalist, human rights activist and founder and editor-in-chief of Lewis Hine Org, has followed the case for many years. He told CocoaRadar: “This legal case against Mars, Cargill, and Mondelēz, brought under US consumer protection laws, is extremely important because the cruel and exploitative business models of the chocolate industry have long relied on deceitful marketing and false advertising to mask exploitation, including child labour, often supported by NGOs and misleading certifications such as Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance.”
A remote status hearing is scheduled for 13 March, 2026, which could pave the way for discovery that could shed light on longstanding concerns about child labour in the cocoa industry.
- Mars, Cargill, and Mondelēz have not responded to requests for comment.
Background information:
Reuters (July 23, 2025) – Hershey, Nestlé, other cocoa companies defeat appeal of child slavery lawsuit. Reuters covered a U.S. appeals court decision that rejected a lawsuit by former child workers from Mali against several chocolate makers. The D.C. Circuit found the plaintiffs couldn’t “plausibly” link their forced labor to specific farms supplying the companies . The report notes Mars, Cargill and Mondelēz were among the defendants in this case (along with Nestlé, Hershey, Olam and Barry Callebaut). The plaintiffs’ lawyer, IRA’s Terry Collingsworth, criticized the ruling for effectively rewarding the companies for obscuring their supply chains . (Link: Reuters*)
Case file: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION. Case No. 2023-CAB-7264
For further information contact: International Rights Advocates (IRA) iradvocates.org