Snapshot

In June 2016, seven former Cambodian workers at a Thai seafood factory producing exports for the United States filed a civil lawsuit in a California federal district court against two Thai seafood producers (Phatthana Seafood and SS Frozen Food) and two U.S. importers (Rubicon Resources and Wales & Co Universe) under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The lawsuit was dismissed in successive rulings by the district court and the court of appeals, but following a change in legislation, the case was reopened in February 2026 by the court of appeals. The case is ongoing.

Factual background

The plaintiffs, five men and two women from rural Cambodia, claim they were recruited in 2010 and 2011 to work at a factory in Thailand producing seafood.

While employed in the factory, the plaintiffs allegedly suffered from severe working and living conditions, underpayment, unlawful salary reductions, restrictions of movement and other seriousabuses.

According to the lawsuit, the defendants (Phatthana Seafood, SS Frozen Food, Rubicon Resources and Wales & Co. Universe) were part of an “integrated enterprise to produce, transport and sell seafood products from Thailand in the United States”. The claim states that producers from Thailand Phatthana Seafood and SS Frozen Food (both part of the CSF group) manufactured seafoodproducts, including in a factory located in the Songkhla province of Thailand where the claimants worked. These were then commercialised in the United States through US company Rubicon Resources, also controlled by CSF group and by Wales & Co. Universe (a Thai company also registered in California).

Legal argument

The lawsuit alleges the plaintiffs were victims of human trafficking, forced labour and servitude, and seeks compensation from the defendants. The claims are brought under the Alien Tort Statute andthe Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), which provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction for civil lability when an alleged perpetrator is a national or is present in the US.

Legal proceedings

On 15 June 2016, the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit before a federal district court in California. The companies filed a motion to dismiss the complaint arguing that the alleged conduct occurred outside the US and the court did not have jurisdiction over the case. In November 2016, the court denied the defendants' motion and ruled that the lawsuit could proceed under the TVPRA, but dismissed the claims under the Alien Tort Statue.

In May 2017, Rubicon was acquired by High Liner Foods.

In December 2017, the court dismissed the case. Among other findings, it ruled that Phatthana Seafood and SS Frozen Food had not enough presence in the US to be held accountable under the TVPRA, and that Rubicon Resources and Wales & Co. Universe could not be held responsible for the working conditions in the factory.

The plaintiffs appealed the ruling before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In February 2022, it affirmed the decision of the district court. As regards Rubicon, it considered that there was no evidence that it had actually benefitted from the forced labour, only that it had attempted to do so. The plaintiffs requested the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc (by all the judges of the court), but the court denied the petition in May 2022.

In August 2023, following advocacy efforts by human rights organisations, the US Congress approved a clarifying amendment to the TVPRA to specify that civil liability extends to those who attempt to benefit from forced labour. Following the amendment, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the case against Rubicon before the district court, that denied it on the grounds that the amendment did not apply to the events of the case, as they had occurred before its approval.

The plaintiffs appealed the decision and, in July 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court on the same grounds. However, in March 2025, the Court of Appeals issued an order vacating this judgement and deciding to rehear the case en banc.

On 20 February 2026, the court reversed the decision of the district court against reopening the case. The court found that the amendment has retroactive effect as it was only a clarifying amendment seeking precisely to address the Ninth District’s earlier decisions. The case now goes back to the lower court. The case is ongoing.