Texas Instruments is facing allegations in a lawsuit that claims the company, along with AMD and Intel, has played a role in the deaths of civilians in Ukraine due to their technology being utilized in foreign weapons. The suit contends that these companies neglected their responsibility to prevent their products from being diverted into dangerous hands.
The lawsuit asserts that components designed by Texas Instruments were discovered in military technologies from Russia, China, and Iran, which have been implicated in attacks on Ukrainian civilians. The plaintiffs are seeking accountability for what they allege is the companies’ failure to safeguard their products from being used inappropriately.
Mikal Watts, the founder of Watts Law Firm LLP, stated that microchips produced by Texas Instruments, AMD, and Intel were incorporated into weapon systems responsible for targeting civilians. The suit, which is filed in collaboration with BakerHostetler LLP, indicates that the plaintiffs are ordinary individuals seeking justice for the loss of family members, serious physical injuries, and mental trauma stemming from missile strikes allegedly facilitated by these American firms.
The companies are accused of neglecting to take adequate measures to prevent their technology from being misappropriated. The lawsuit highlights a pattern of behavior where the companies allowed their products to slip through recognized vulnerabilities in the global supply chain, ultimately leading to their integration into drones and missiles that have harmed Ukrainian civilians.
The lawsuit outlines several legal claims against Texas Instruments and its counterparts:
- Negligence: Plaintiffs argue that the companies had a duty under Texas law to exercise reasonable care in the production and distribution of their products. They claim the companies failed to conduct proper due diligence, disregarding governmental warnings, permitting high-risk sales, and not mitigating foreseeable misuse.
- Negligence per se: The lawsuit alleges that the companies violated U.S. export control laws, sanctions regulations, and Executive Orders that prohibit the diversion of sensitive microelectronics to adversarial entities.
- Gross negligence: The plaintiffs contend that the companies were aware of substantial risks associated with their products but chose to prioritize continued exports over public safety.
- Wrongful death: Families of individuals killed in missile and drone attacks allege that the companies’ actions directly contributed to those fatalities.
- Survivor claims: Individuals who did not lose loved ones but experienced physical or psychological harm also seek compensation for the distress caused by the companies’ alleged negligence.
The lawsuit paints a picture of a long-standing pattern of negligence, as noted by Watts in his statement. He mentioned that federal agencies, journalists, and international watchdogs have for years documented the misuse of these components in foreign weapons programs. Despite this knowledge, the companies reportedly continued their sales through channels susceptible to exploitation. The complaint outlines a consistent trend of misconduct, indicating that they sold products in regions identified as high-risk and maintained relationships with distributors linked to sanctioned entities, all while ignoring clear signals of potential diversion.
As the case unfolds, it raises significant questions about corporate responsibility and the implications of technology in global conflicts.
