Texas Instruments and Other Tech Giants Face Lawsuit Over Alleged Role in Civilian Deaths
A recent lawsuit has placed Texas Instruments (TI), AMD, and Intel under scrutiny for their alleged role in the deaths of Ukrainian civilians. The plaintiffs claim that components designed by these American companies were used in foreign weapons systems, including drones and missiles, which were then deployed against civilian targets.
The lawsuit, filed by the Watts Law Firm LLP in collaboration with BakerHostetler LLP, argues that the tech giants failed to prevent the diversion of their products through known vulnerabilities in the global supply chain. According to the legal documents, the companies neglected their duty to ensure that their technology was not misused, leading to tragic consequences.
Key Allegations Against the Companies
The lawsuit outlines several causes of action against the three major tech firms:
-
Negligence: The plaintiffs argue that TI, AMD, and Intel had a responsibility under Texas law to exercise reasonable care in the development and distribution of their products. They allege that the companies failed to conduct proper due diligence, ignored government warnings, allowed high-risk sales, and did not take steps to prevent foreseeable misuse.
-
Negligence per se: The suit claims that the companies violated U.S. export control laws, sanctions regulations, and Executive Orders aimed at preventing the use of sensitive microelectronics by hostile actors.
-
Gross negligence: The plaintiffs assert that the companies were aware of extreme risks associated with their business practices but chose to continue selling their products regardless.
-
Wrongful death: Families who lost loved ones in drone or missile attacks are seeking justice for the harm caused by the companies’ alleged actions.
-
Survival: Individuals who suffered physical or psychological trauma as a result of the attacks are also seeking damages.
A Pattern of Misconduct
According to the lawsuit, the companies engaged in a consistent pattern of misconduct. The plaintiffs claim that federal agencies, journalists, and international watchdogs have long documented how microchips from these firms were being routed into foreign weapons programs. Despite this, the companies continued to sell their products through channels they knew were vulnerable to misuse.
The complaint highlights that the companies sold into regions already identified as high risk. They also continued doing business with distributors linked to sanctioned actors. The indicators of potential misuse were clear, yet the companies proceeded with their operations.
What the Plaintiffs Are Seeking
The plaintiffs, described as “ordinary people” affected by the attacks, are seeking relief for the loss of family members, severe injuries, and psychological trauma. The lawsuit emphasizes that the companies’ actions directly contributed to the harm suffered by civilians in Ukraine.
The case raises important questions about corporate responsibility and the ethical obligations of tech companies in the global supply chain. It also underscores the need for stricter oversight and accountability when it comes to the use of advanced technology in military applications.
The Broader Implications
This lawsuit could set a precedent for how tech companies are held accountable for the misuse of their products. It highlights the complex interplay between innovation, international trade, and human rights. As the legal battle unfolds, it will be closely watched by policymakers, industry leaders, and advocacy groups concerned with the ethical implications of technological advancement.
The case also serves as a reminder of the far-reaching consequences of corporate decisions, particularly in an interconnected world where technology can be repurposed for destructive ends. The outcome of this lawsuit may influence future regulations and corporate practices, shaping the way companies approach global supply chains and international sales.