A new lawsuit accuses the tech giant of selling products made with minerals linked to violence and exploitation in Central Africa. It’s complicated.
By Our Reporter
Apple is facing yet another lawsuit over where it gets the minerals that power your iPhone. But to understand why this keeps happening and why it matters, you need to understand the messy, morally complicated reality of how we get the materials that make modern technology possible.
A Washington DC-based human rights group called International Rights Advocates filed the lawsuit in late November, claiming Apple’s products contain cobalt, tin, tantalum, and tungsten connected to child labour, forced labour, and armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. Apple categorically denies these allegations, saying its supply chain auditing is rigorous and its standards are industry-leading.
This is a story that touches your pocket—literally. It is also a story about why doing the right thing in a globalised economy is frustratingly difficult, even for companies that claim they want to.
The minerals in your phone have a dark history
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: the Democratic Republic of the Congo sits atop some of the world’s most valuable mineral deposits. The country supplies roughly 70 per cent of the world’s cobalt, along with substantial amounts of tin, tantalum, and tungsten. These aren’t obscure materials; they are essential for batteries, circuit boards, and basically everything electronic you own.
But eastern Congo has been caught in cycles of armed conflict for decades. Various militia groups control mining areas, using profits from mineral sales to fund violence that has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more. The minerals get smuggled across borders, often into Rwanda, where they are “laundered” into the global supply chain, making it nearly impossible to trace where they actually came from.
This creates a moral dilemma that affects every tech company: how do you source essential materials without funding violence?
What the lawsuit actually alleges
International Rights Advocates, which has filed similar suits before, claims that three Chinese smelting companies in Apple’s supply chain (Ningxia Orient, JiuJiang JinXin, and Jiujiang Tanbre) processed coltan minerals that UN investigators say were smuggled through Rwanda after armed factions seized mining sites in eastern Congo.
The lawsuit also cites a 2025 University of Nottingham study that allegedly documented forced and child labour at Congolese mining sites connected to Apple’s suppliers.
Importantly, the advocacy group is not seeking money damages. They want a court to rule that Apple’s conduct violates consumer protection law, stop what they call “deceptive marketing practices,” and cover their legal costs. It is about accountability, not a payout.
Apple says this isn’t true. Here’s their defence.
Apple has strongly pushed back, stating there is “no reasonable basis” to conclude that any smelters or refiners in its supply chain finance armed groups in the DRC or neighbouring countries.
The company points to several measures. It audits suppliers, enforces strict conduct codes, and claims that 76 per cent of cobalt in its devices was recycled in 2024. When conflict escalated in eastern Congo last year, Apple says it instructed suppliers to stop sourcing from both the DRC and Rwanda entirely.
Apple’s position is essentially this: “We take this seriously, we have robust systems in place, and these allegations do not reflect reality.”
Why this keeps happening and why the lawsuits keep failing
This is not International Rights Advocates’ first rodeo. They previously sued Apple, Tesla, and other tech companies over cobalt sourcing, but US courts dismissed that case last year. French prosecutors dropped a case against Apple subsidiaries in December, citing insufficient evidence. A criminal complaint in Belgium is still under investigation.
The pattern reveals something important. It is legally difficult to prove a direct connection between a finished iPhone and a specific mine in Congo. Supply chains for these minerals are intentionally complex, involving multiple intermediaries, smelters, and refiners across several countries. Even with the best intentions and auditing, complete traceability is extraordinarily difficult.
That complexity is both the problem and, arguably, part of the solution for companies that do not want to be held accountable.
The Congolese perspective: sovereignty and survival
For people in Congo, this is not an abstract debate about corporate responsibility; it is about survival and sovereignty.
The Congolese government has repeatedly said that armed groups like M23 and Alliance Fleuve Congo use mineral profits to fund a conflict that is devastating eastern provinces. Kinshasa has tightened export controls to try cutting off funding to these militias, but those measures also constrain global supplies and can hurt legitimate Congolese miners trying to make a living.
Here’s the paradox. The DRC possesses extraordinary mineral wealth yet remains one of the world’s poorest countries. The minerals that power global technology should theoretically provide prosperity, but instead they have often fuelled violence, corruption, and exploitation. Meanwhile, international pressure on tech companies to avoid “conflict minerals” can have the unintended effect of pushing legitimate Congolese miners out of global markets entirely, further impoverishing communities.
It is a classic example of how good intentions in global supply chain governance can have complicated, even counterproductive effects on the ground.
Rwanda’s awkward position
Rwanda consistently denies facilitating smuggled Congolese minerals. But there is a problem with that narrative. Rwanda’s mineral exports have grown dramatically despite the country having limited domestic deposits.
UN investigators have documented what they describe as unprecedented levels of illegal mining and smuggling from eastern Congo into Rwanda. This puts Rwanda in an uncomfortable spot, benefiting economically from minerals that may be fuelling violence next door while maintaining it is doing nothing wrong.
Neither Rwanda nor the Chinese smelting companies named in the lawsuit have commented publicly on these latest allegations.
Can tech companies actually solve this?
This is where things get philosophically interesting. Apple and other tech giants have invested substantially in auditing, certification schemes, and recycling programmes. The OECD has established comprehensive guidelines for responsible sourcing from conflict-affected areas. There are blockchain-based traceability initiatives and third-party verification systems.
But International Rights Advocates argues that even Apple’s recycling claims are misleading because the accounting methodology permits “commingling” recycled cobalt with ore from conflict zones, effectively undermining traceability.
The harder question is whether any amount of corporate due diligence can genuinely ensure ethical sourcing from conflict-affected regions when the structural realities include:
- Porous borders and sophisticated smuggling networks
- State actors potentially complicit in mineral laundering
- Desperate poverty that makes artisanal mining one of few income options
- Armed groups with strong incentives to maintain control of mining areas
- Global demand that far exceeds certified conflict-free supplies
Some experts argue that the only real solution is political stability and governance reform in Congo itself, something entirely outside Apple’s control.
What this means for you
If you own an iPhone, a laptop, or basically any electronic device, there is a non-zero chance it contains minerals that passed through problematic supply chains. That is not an indictment of you as a consumer; it is a reflection of how globalised production systems work.
The lawsuit against Apple matters because it represents sustained pressure on tech companies to do better, even when “better” is maddeningly difficult to define or achieve. Consumer awareness is growing. Advocacy groups are refining their strategies. Regulatory requirements are tightening in multiple jurisdictions.
Companies like Apple have built their brands substantially on values like innovation and social responsibility. When those values collide with the messy realities of global supply chains, it creates both reputational risk and an opportunity to actually lead industry change if companies choose to.
The bigger picture
This lawsuit is one data point in a broader trend. The architecture of accountability around technology supply chains is gradually taking shape. It is happening through consumer protection laws, international frameworks, advocacy pressure, and sustained public attention.
Whether that architecture will ultimately prove effective remains an open question. The fundamental tension has not been resolved. Modern technology requires specific minerals that largely come from specific places with specific problems. Until that changes, through recycling, substitution, or stability in Congo, these dilemmas will persist.
For now, your iPhone works brilliantly. The question is what happened in the long chain of extraction, processing, and manufacturing that put it in your hand and whether anyone can truly be held accountable for all of it.
The Chinese smelting companies named in the lawsuit, along with the governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, did not respond to requests for comment.
