Bumble Bee v. Ahmad et al : A Pursuit to Hold Corporation Accountable for Forced Labour at Sea

Earlier this year, four Indonesian migrant fishers filed a lawsuit against Bumble Bee Foods (Bumble Bee) alleging they were subjected to forced labour, abuse, and inhumane conditions while working aboard distant-water fishing vessels.[1] The fishers have been seeking redress under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorisation Act (TVPRA) and state negligence law.

Recently, Bumble Bee responded to this lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss the case and argued that the claimants have failed to establish legal standing and have not articulated a valid cause of action under the TVPRA or applicable state negligence law.[2]

Bumble Bee’s Legal Arguments

Bumble Bee claimed that after examining the plaintiffs’ allegations of serious mistreatment aboard fishing vessels owned by two Chinese companies, which supplied albacore tuna that ultimately entered its supply chain, the company promptly instructed its suppliers to stop sourcing from the vessels in question.[3]Further, Bumble Bee argued that it cannot be held liable for alleged abuses committed by independent third parties.[4] In its view, the vessels were neither owned nor operated by them, and therefore, the responsibility rests with the third parties involved. The company also contended that allowing the case to proceed would create a “limitless theory of liability,” and finally expose U.S. manufacturers and retailers to lawsuits over the conduct of unrelated foreign entities anywhere in a global supply chain.[5]

Plaintiffs’ Response

Beginning this month, the Indonesian plaintiffs responded, and they still strongly argued that Bumble Bee knowingly benefited from a supply chain tainted by forced labour and had long been aware of the abuses occurring within it.[6] Thus, this meets the legal standard under the TVPRA, which provides a legal mechanism for foreign victims of trafficking and forced labour to hold U.S. companies accountable when they knowingly benefit from such exploitation. The company’s reactive measures – cutting ties with suppliers only after allegations emerged – do not insulate it from responsibility, and dismissing the case would reinforce a troubling precedent where companies hide behind complex, opaque supply chains to avoid liability.[7] In addition, the company should prioritise remediation and use its leverage to address human rights violations within its supply chain rather than fully disengage immediately, which could inadvertently harm fishers and communities dependent on these fishing operations.

A Broader Pattern of Forced Labour in the Fishing Industry

The allegations in this case, if we look back, reflect a wider and deeply entrenched pattern of systemic exploitation in the global fishing sector, particularly within the seafood sector. Distant-water fishing is widely recognised as one of the most hazardous and isolated occupations in the world.[8] Workers are forced to travel further and remain at sea for extended periods—sometimes months or even years making them extremely vulnerable to labour abuses and human trafficking. This vulnerability is further exacerbated by poor connectivity at sea, which can make it nearly impossible for workers to report complaints or seek help.

The International Labour Organisation estimates that over 128,000 workers in the fishing industry may be subjected to forced labour conditions.[9] Reports from across the sector also consistently highlight how exploitative practices occurred within this industry, such as the withholding or non-payment of wages, excessively long working hours, unsanitary living conditions, inadequate access to food and potable water, physical abuse, and extended isolation at sea.[10]

The fact that the fundamental structure of the global seafood supply chain is characterised by multi-layered subcontracting, jurisdictional ambiguity, and a lack of regulatory oversight continues to hinder corporations from meaningful accountability. This fragmentation not only obscures responsibility but also enables systemic exploitation to persist largely unchecked.

Although laws in many countries provide avenues for workers to seek justice, in reality, pursuing civil or criminal cases is very difficult and uncommon because the process is slow, with investigations often taking months or even years before a case is filed in court, if it proceeds at all.[11] This delay highlights the systemic obstacles that leave victims without proper remediation. Thus, despite extensive documentation of labour abuses over many years, only a few legal cases have been brought forward, and yet businesses continue to benefit from their operation.

What’s next?

Can multinational corporations be held accountable for profiting from human rights violations embedded deep within complex global supply chains?

The outcome of this case carries implications that extend well beyond the immediate parties. At stake is not only the possibility of redress for four exploited workers but also the broader remediation efforts for hundreds of thousands of exploited migrant fishers globally.

The judge’s decision in the coming months will determine whether the plaintiffs will be granted an opportunity to pursue justice through trial—or whether another case alleging forced labour at sea will be lost in a tide of legal complexity.

Sources:

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7318529642196357120

[2] https://news.mongabay.com/2025/06/bumble-bee-asks-court-to-dismiss-lawsuit-alleging-forced-labor-in-tuna-supply-chain/

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/77591/indonesian-fishers-respond-to-us-seafood-companys-attempt-to-dismiss-forced-labour-suit/

[7] Ibid

[8] https://globalfishingwatch.org/news-views/life-below-water-conditions-fishers/

[9]https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_norm/@ipec/documents/publication/wcms_854733.pdf

[10] https://www.ilo.org/topics/forced-labour-modern-slavery-and-trafficking-persons/sectors-and-topics/forced-labour-and-human-trafficking-fisheries

[11] https://oceanjusticeinitiative.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/20220823_ENGLISH.pdf;https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-southeastasia-stateless/2019/12/b68e7b93-greenpeace-seabound-book-c.pdf