Mars, Allies Lose Bid to Keep Child Labor-Tied Case in US Court

Mars Inc. will have to fight child labor-related allegations in a local District of Columbia court after failing to convince a federal judge that the amount in controversy warranted removal to the federal district court.

The cost of complying with a D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act injunction is conventionally divided among the beneficiary population, the US District Court for the District of Columbia said Thursday. Mars, Cargill Inc, Mondelēz International Inc. failed to convince US District Judge Royce C. Lamberth that the total combined compliance cost should determine jurisdiction instead.

“There is no ‘clear, controlling case law from the D.C. Circuit’ on” how to apply the non-aggregation principle—where separate and distinct claims from different plaintiffs shouldn’t be combined in order to determine the amount in controversy in district Consumer Protection Procedures Act cases, said Lamberth, who sits in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

The lack of clarity was sufficient to defeat International Rights Advocates’ bid to recoup attorneys’ fees from the removal motion, but the group’s request was “even weaker than usual, because the defendants raised a serious question about the jurisdictional implications of the plaintiff serving as its own counsel” in a DCCPPA suit.

IRAdvocates saidthat it worked with CBS News to discover Mars purchased cocoa from plantations that used child labor in unsafe conditions and for low pay. The group contended that the defendants claim they have “stronger guarantees against child and forced labor than they actually have,” when consumers would value companies with ethical labor practices.

Lamberth described the cause of action as a misrepresentation claim.

Among their unavailing arguments for aggregation, the defendants argued that since IRAdvocates’ executive director, Terrence Collingsworth, is serving as co-counsel with Richman Law & Policy, the court should consider attorneys’ fees as part of the amount in controversy calculation.

Lamberth said the conversation was speculative and thus declined to “put a stake in the ground on this issue.” The defendants provided neither sufficient information “about Collingsworth’s compensation, nor about the division of labor between him and Richman.”

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP represented Mars. Mayer Brown LLP represented Cargill. Hogan Lovells represented Mondelēz.

The case is Int’l Rights Advocates v. Mars, Inc., D.D.C., No. 1:24-cv-00894, 3/13/25.