Apple now faces new legal pressure after International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) filed a lawsuit accusing the company of using conflict minerals tied to violence in Central Africa. The Washington-based group argues that Apple relies on minerals sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, where armed groups control major mining areas.
IRAdvocates claims that three Chinese smelters—Ningxia Orient, JiuJiang JinXin, and Jiujiang Tanbre—processed coltan that smugglers moved out of Eastern DRC. Coltan produces niobium and tantalum, two essential minerals used in Apple devices. Apple’s 2024 supplier list identifies all three smelters as approved partners, which strengthens the group’s argument.
A Renewed Battle After a Previous Dismissal
This case follows an earlier lawsuit from IRAdvocates. In 2019, the group sued Apple and other major tech firms over cobalt sourcing. The court dismissed that case in 2024, stating that the companies did not control the upstream mining operations.
IRAdvocates now believes the current claim stands on firmer ground. The group points to a clearer supply chain for coltan, which can be tracked from mining sites to smelters and then to parts suppliers. They argue that this traceability shows Apple used minerals tied to armed groups and forced labor.
Why Conflict Minerals Remain a Major Issue
Tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold—known as 3TG—play a crucial role in electronics manufacturing. Apple needs these minerals to build batteries, chips, and circuit boards. But these same minerals often come from regions where miners face violence, exploitation, and extreme working conditions.
Apple says it works to keep its supply chain clean. The company releases an annual conflict minerals report and cuts ties with suppliers that violate its standards. In 2020, Apple removed 18 suppliers, and in 2022, it dropped another 12. IRAdvocates argues that these actions do not go far enough.
What This Case Could Mean
This lawsuit may shape the future of mineral sourcing in the tech industry. A ruling against Apple could force stronger supply-chain checks across electronics manufacturing. For now, the case highlights the ongoing struggle to create technology without fueling conflict or exploitation.
