Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE, HOUR—S.D. Cal.: Bumble Bee to face TPVRA claims it knowingly sourced tuna from boats using forced labor, (Nov 17, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the company likely had notice about the prevalence of forced labor on the vessels from which it sourced tuna and failed to take adequate steps to train staff in order to prevent its occurrence.

A federal district court in California rejected Bumble Bee Foods’ bid for dismissal of four plaintiffs’ claims that the company violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 by sourcing its albacore tuna for resale to U.S. grocery stores from fishing vessels it knew relied upon their forced labor. While the court also allowed their parallel negligence claims seeking damages to advance to discovery, the court dismissed, without prejudice, their claim for injunctive relief since they failed to plausibly allege Article III standing by demonstrating likelihood of future harm or threat of irreparable injury (Akhmad v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 25-cv-00583-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025)).

TVPRA claims not impermissibly extraterritorial. Declining to dismiss the plaintiff’s Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) claims against Bumble Bee Foods (BBF), the court first rejected the company’s reliance on the canon of the presumption against extraterritoriality to argue that provisions Section 1595 and Section 1589 of the TVPRA do not permit a private right of action for foreign conduct. Significantly, the Ninth Circuit has held that, “§ 1596 supplies extraterritorial application to §§ 1581, 1583, 1584, 1589, 1590, and 1591, but only if the alleged offender is a United States citizen, a lawful permanent resident, or is present in the United States.” Here, plaintiffs brought their TVPRA claims under Section 1589, one of the provisions for which Section 1596 provides a private cause of action. Therefore, because BBF is incorporated in Delaware and its principal place of business is San Diego, California, it was clearly “present in the United States,” and the presumption of extraterritoriality did not apply.

Forced labor. To hold BBF liable as a “beneficiary” under TVPRA § 1589(b), the plaintiffs needed to show that the company benefited from the behavior prohibited under Section 1589(a) (here, the forced labor). Here, neither party disputed that the plaintiffs plausibly were subject to forced labor prohibited by Section 1589(a) by the foreign vessel owners, as they claimed the owners obtained their labor, physically abused and threatened them, deprived them of adequate sleep and food, and refused to let them go home. Given the company’s alleged active role in obtaining albacore tuna from the vessels on which the plaintiffs were allegedly subject to forced labor and reselling the tuna for a profit, it also “clearly had knowledge of the financial benefit it received.”

Participation in venture. TVPRA § 1589(b) also required the plaintiffs to demonstrate BBF’s “participation in the venture” to establish beneficiary liability. Importantly, courts have held that a plaintiff does not need to show an “overt act” of participation in the criminal act (here, forced labor) to redeem TVPRA’s civil remedy. The issue was whether BBF participated in a venture with the owners and operators of the fishing vessels on which the plaintiffs worked. The plaintiffs alleged that BBF did so by profiting from selling tuna obtained from the fishing vessels and also by collaborating with vessel operators to obtain environmental certifications from the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) via implementing fishery improvement projects (FIPs).

Mere profiting not enough. Courts within the Ninth Circuit have held that establishing an ongoing “business relationship” between the alleged beneficiary and criminal perpetrator may be sufficient for establishing participation in a joint venture actionable under the civil remedy provisions of the TVPRA, but mere “arms-length transactions” characteristic of an “ordinary buyer-seller” transaction is not sufficient. Therefore, the mere fact BBF bought tuna from the fishing vessel operators (among other suppliers) did not establish a joint venture in violation of the TVPRA. Rather, something more was required—like a “common purpose, shared profits and risk, or control.” Here, the plaintiffs met that burden by alleging that BBF participated in growing the vessel operators’ business.

Active, ongoing support. Specifically, they alleged that BBF and its parent company sponsored the FIPs, which enabled the fishing vessels to obtain environmental certifications from the MSC. In addition to its financial support, BBF conducted audits and electronically monitored the vessels. As part of participation in the BBF-sponsored FIPs, the vessels the plaintiffs worked on harvested albacore tuna exclusively for sale to BBF. The FIPs, thus, both promoted the sustainability of each fishery and the subsequent profitability of BBF’s sales to U.S. customers.

Alleged awareness. The plaintiffs also plausibly alleged that BBF “knew or should have known” about the forced labor practices violating the TVPRA at the vessels on which they worked. While the Ninth Circuit has held that public reports on “industry-wide” abuse in a particular country and on buyers of perpetrating companies’ products is not sufficient to support a reasonable inference of a TVPRA defendant’s knowledge of alleged labor abuses, the plaintiffs alleged more here. Specifically, the public sources they cited did not just identify the forced labor conditions on vessels supplying BBF with albacore tuna that were published during the time of the plaintiffs’ alleged forced labor from 2020 to 2023. They also identified public reports and legal actions against BBF and its parent company during the same time period.

In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that BBF was an active participant in its parent company’s social responsibility program, and as part of the program worked directly with the vessels on issues relating to “crew health, safety, and livelihood.” Based on these allegations, the court found that BBF likely had notice about the prevalence of forced labor on the vessels from which it sourced tuna and failed to take adequate steps to train staff in order to prevent its occurrence.

Special relationship. The court also allowed the plaintiffs’ negligence claims to proceed, concluding that they plausibly alleged that a special relationship existed between BBF and the vessel operators such that BBF had a duty to protect them against the vessel operators’ forced labor. In particular, they claimed that BBF set the crew recruitment, wage and benefits, and health and safety policies and procedures via its social responsibility program, and also financed and implemented policies for the vessels to obtain MSC certification via its FIPs. Additionally, the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that BBF could refuse to do business with the vessel operators and take other disciplinary actions against them.

Rowland factors. The plaintiffs also sufficiently alleged the requisite foreseeability and public policy considerations—the so-called Rowland factors which California courts employ to evaluate whether there should be a categorical exception to the general duty of care. As discussed, BBF should have known about the risks of forced labor in the vessels and monetarily benefitted from that forced labor. Moreover, policy factors weighed in favor of imposing duty onto BBF since the plaintiffs alleged that the company could have adopted human rights policies, and also could have refused to do business with the operators’ vessels upon finding abuse. The court also cited “the societal goal of safeguarding fisherman from forced labor weighs,” and noted that the fact that BBF could sponsor FIPs and participate in the social responsibility program suggested that it would not be unduly burdensome to require the company to reach the human rights standards it purportedly set out for itself.

Misfeasance. Finally, the plaintiffs adequately alleged that BBF’s entire conduct created a risk of harm to them such that the company was negligent due to its misfeasance. As discussed, BBF allegedly created the opportunity and financial incentive for the vessel owners to abuse the plaintiffs, and BBF also controlled the vessels on which the abuse occurred.

Can replead claim for injunctive relief. However, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ bid for injunction relief, but without prejudice. Importantly, the civil remedy provision of the TVPRA does not provide for injunctive relief. Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate Article III standing for purposes of injunctive relief as a remedy for BBF’s alleged negligence since they did not plausibly allege a likelihood of future harm or threat of irreparable injury. Rather, they made only conclusory statements that they “continue to suffer harm” as a result of BBF’s unlawful actions, which prevented them “from earning a safe and adequate living as distant-water fishermen,” which was not sufficient.

The case is No. 25-cv-00583-BAS-DEB.

Judge: Bashant, C.

Attorneys: Agnieszka M. Fryszman (Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll) for Akhmad, Muhammad Syafi'i and Muhammad Sahrudin. Dana A. Raphael (Hogan Lovells US) for Bumble Bee Foods, LLC.

Companies: Bumble Bee Foods, LLC

Cases: WageHour Procedure RemediesDamages StateLawClaims TortClaims CaliforniaNews