abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

2 Oct 2015

Author:
Amnesty International (USA)

Court Should Overturn Decision Limiting Corporate Transparency

Amnesty International is calling on a U.S. court to reconsider a decision protecting some of the world’s largest companies from having to tell consumers that they were unable to prove their products have not funded armed groups contributing to conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and neighboring countries. Section 1502 of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires companies to publicly report whether their products contain certain minerals whose trade helps fuel violence in Central Africa…[The Section 1502] rule requires companies to use specific language when describing their products that contain those minerals…The organization today filed a petition asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reconsider two decisions…striking down that disclosure requirement on the basis that it violates companies’ free speech rights under the First Amendment.

Part of the following timelines

US court voids rule requiring companies to state whether minerals in supply chain are "conflict-free" - finds rule violates corporate "free speech" rights

USA: Securities & Exchange Commission, Amnesty Intl. ask federal court to rehear conflict minerals case