Bumble Bee Foods, LLC (Bumble Bee) is the largest canned tuna brand in North America and a subsidiary of one of the world's largest seafood traders, Fong Chun Formosa Fishery Company, Ltd. (FCF)—both of which are allegedly connected to a long history of human rights abuses in their fishery supply chains. Early last week, Global Labor Justice - International Labor Rights Forum (GLJ-ILRF), one of Corporate Accountability Lab’s partner organizations, sued Bumble Bee for its false and deceptive marketing on sustainability.
This post presents allegations included in GLJ-ILRF’s complaint against Bumble Bee and provides some general context on consumer protection litigation against multinational companies who rely on deceptive marketing practices to save face with consumers despite having supply chains that are rife with human rights abuses.
GLJ-ILRF’s lawsuit against Bumble Bee for false and deceptive marketing
GLJ-ILRF is suing Bumble Bee under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) on behalf of itself and the general public, in the interest of Bumble Bee consumers in Washington, D.C. GLJ-ILRF, which is represented by Richman Law & Policy, seeks a declaration from the court that Bumble Bee’s practices violate the CPPA and an injunction to prohibit the company from continuing to engage in misleading advertising.
GLJ-ILRF’s claims that Bumble Bee has engaged in false and deceptive marketing are based on the company’s representations about a “fair and safe supply chain,” including that it is “best-in-class” for worker safety standards and “champion[s] sustainable fishing,” despite substantial evidence of forced labor and worker safety violations.
Evidence of abusive supply chain practices includes Bumble Bee’s alleged reliance on inherently unsafe commercial fishing practices like distant water fishing and transshipment. Distant water fishing involves traveling outside the more heavily policed territorial waters of a vessel’s home country. This practice heightens the risk of forced labor – often by vulnerable migrant workers – which can more easily be hidden. Distant water fishing often entails “transshipment,” an exchange of goods between ships while at sea. Transshipment is a common method used to commit human rights abuses, including trafficking in persons, because the transactions are far less likely to be regulated by third party officials. These exchanges also permit the evasion of labor laws, as catches may be transferred from ships that would otherwise be denied access to ports because of past violations.
These practices and others alleged in the complaint fly in the face of international laws and standards on worker safety and fair labor, including the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Work in Fishing Convention. For example, while the Convention mandates that fishing crews have at minimum 10 hours of rest per day, FCF’s policies require only “sufficient time to rest.” Additional discrepancies between ILO standards and FCF’s policies exist with regard to recruitment fees designed to render migrant workers more financially vulnerable, payment period lengths, and audits of fishing vessels to ensure safe working conditions. According to GLJ-ILRF, “Working conditions in supply chains reportedly involve up to 34-hour workdays, inadequate sleep, withheld wages, and little to no food. In addition, there have been various documented instances of forced labor; illegal, unreported, unregulated (IUU) fishing; and even deaths of workers.”
For additional information on forced labor and other human rights abuses in the seafood industry, check out GLJ-ILRF’s reports Labor Abuse in Taiwan’s Seafood Industry & Local Advocacy for Reform, and Time for a Sea Change.
The complaint notes that Bumble Bee’s misrepresentations signaling fair labor practices stymie true efforts to achieve more sustainable supply chains as they enable the company to saturate the market and drown out the voices of competitors that are taking steps toward substantive reform. In filing their complaint, GLJ-ILRF raises a critical alarm about the dangers of “fair washing,” a term used to describe deceptive corporate messaging and behavior intended to direct consumer attention away from harmful labor practices.
Consumer Protection Cases as a Strategy to hold Companies Accountable for Human Rights Abuse
The Bumble Bee suit joins numerous other efforts to curtail the broader practice of fair washing (and, relatedly “green washing” and “humane washing,” which refer to misleading environmental and animal welfare claims, respectively). Companies often engage in fair washing to respond to increased consumer pressure for ethically produced products while doing little to change practices on the ground or account for past abuses. While actually improving supply chain conditions would address the problems consumers care about, it’s more costly and disruptive to business than updating brand messaging.
Consumer protection statutes like the CPPA, are one of the few legal tools available to litigators in the United States seeking to hold corporations accountable for human rights abuses across global supply chains. In addition to GLJ-ILRF’s case against Bumble Bee, other consumer protection based cases to watch are CAL’s suit against Hershey and Rainforest Alliance and the class action against Starbucks filed by Lori Myers, represented by Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes, LLP. (Complaints available here and here).
While consumer protection suits historically have not contemplated redress for workers, the primary victims of the abuses underlying the deceptive marketing practices, they bring fair washing practices to light. These suits aim to induce companies to conduct human rights due diligence and improve their practices to match their claims, or at least prevent them from profiting from statements about sustainability that hold no weight.
Laura Sabia is a Legal Intern and a 2L at NYU School of Law. Avery Kelly is a Staff Attorney.
