Tuna company Bumble Bee Foods won a partial victory in an ongoing lawsuit that alleges the company is financially liable for forced labor that took place aboard vessels that supply it with tuna.
Akhmad et al. v. Bumble Bee Foods was brought by a group of Indonesian fishers claiming the company is partially liable for alleged forced labor that occurred on vessels that supply the company tuna under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). Bumble Bee successfully defended itself against any injunctive relief, meaning the company will not be forced to grant several requests by the plaintiffs.
Four fishers sued Bumble Bee in March 2025, alleging they experienced both human trafficking and forced labor on vessels that provided Bumble Bee Foods with tuna that was later sold in the U.S. The fishers argue that under the TVPRA, which expanded the original Trafficking Victims Protection Act passed in 2000 to address human trafficking, Bumble Bee is liable for their alleged abuse even if it occurred outside the U.S.
U.S. District Court Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled that the plaintiffs are not experiencing sufficient ongoing harm for the court to grant them injunctive relief but also kept the door open to the potential of civil damages against Bumble Bee.
In her ruling, Bashant wrote that because the plaintiffs did not allege they are currently fishermen, did not prove Bumble Bee is preventing them from working as fishermen, and did not indicate they would immediately get employment as fishermen if relief was granted, they “have not sufficiently demonstrated injury-in-fact to obtain injunctive relief.”
“Though the court is sympathetic to challenges plaintiffs may face in seeking employment, plaintiffs have not alleged deprivation of a financial benefit for which they are certainly owed,” Bashant wrote.
The plaintiffs had sought injunctive relief on multiple avenues, including ensuring Bumble Bee not use employment agencies that require fees from fishers, ensuring all workers on vessels are paid in full “at least monthly,” provide remediation mechanisms for unpaid wages, ensure vessels carry proper medical equipment and supplies, ensure proper break times, and ensuring all of its vessels carry free, accessible, and secure Wi-Fi on board.
Bashant’s ruling dismissed the request for relief with prejudice. However, several other key aspects of the lawsuit will move forward as she also issued an order denying in part some of Bumble Bee’s other motions – which included a request for interlocutory review and a motion to consider whether TVPRA applied extraterritorially or outside of the U.S.
NGO Greenpeace said those denials are a big win for the fishers and for labor rights activists.
“The court still recognizes the fishers’ right to seek monetary damages in this case. The prospect of such damages can – and often does – compel companies to change their practices, even in the absence of court orders,” Greenpeace USA Senior Human Rights Advisor Sari Heidenreich said in a press release. “This case has exposed serious labor risks behind some of the seafood on our supermarket shelves.”
Greenpeace said the case is one of the few that have progressed beyond the motion to dismiss stage, making it a milestone for labor rights advocates and for members of the fishing industry pushing for better oversight.
“These cases hold a torch of hope that there will be justice for those who have suffered at the greedy hands of Big Seafood. They represent something Big Seafood would rather not acknowledge: People, in fact, do hold the power to change the industry. People do, in fact, come before profits,” Heidenreich said.
The lawsuit against Bumble Bee is not the only labor-related case against the seafood industry winding its way through the U.S. court system, as another, Ratha v. Rubicon Resources, is actively being cited inside the Bumble Bee case.
That lawsuit won an appeal earlier this year that put it back in court, and a letter dated 14 May 2026 from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan indicated the court was granting an extension of time until 20 July to file a petition for a writ of certiorari – or a formal request to review the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Rubicon Resources claimed the recent opinion of the court “raises substantial questions of law.” The appellate court found the TVPRA’s new rules about companies being civilly liable “when they attempt to benefit, but do not succeed in benefitting, from human trafficking” had retroactive effect, but that decision was closely divided. Rubicon said its certiorari petition “will present substantial questions” to the Supreme Court on the ruling.
“These questions are by no means frivolous nor is Rubicon’s petition filed merely for delay. The substantial nature of the questions is confirmed by the closely divided en banc court and by the detailed responses to the Opinion in Judge Callahan’s dissent,” Rubicon’s legal defense wrote.
The lawsuit against Bumble Bee cited earlier instances of Ratha v. Rubicon, and Bumble Bee won a motion to include the later 9th Circuit Court decision in the court’s consideration. Whether Ratha v. Rubicon moves forward – which could potentially effect decisions in the lawsuit against Bumble Bee – is still being decided.
