• Home
  • News
  • Fortune 500
  • Tech
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Lifestyle
  • Rankings
  • Multimedia
RetailCostco

This Is Why Costco’s Slavery Lawsuit Was Dismissed

By
Michal Addady
Michal Addady
Down Arrow Button Icon
By
Michal Addady
Michal Addady
Down Arrow Button Icon
January 20, 2016, 5:56 PM ET
THAILAND-FRANCE-FISHING-FOOD-RIGHTS
TO GO WITH STORY: France-Thailand-fishing-food-rights-work,FOCUS by Emmanuelle Michel with Delphine Thouvenot Workers select prawns at a market in Samut Sakhon province, a suburb of Bangkok on October 22, 2014. Thailand went on a charm offensive in defence of its prawn industry this week, seeking to convince Europeans that it is responding to allegations of slavery and torture in its fisheries sector. AFP PHOTO / PORNCHAI KITTIWONGSAKUL (Photo credit should read PORNCHAI KITTIWONGSAKUL/AFP/Getty Images)Photograph by Pornchai Kittiwongsakul — AFP via Getty Images

Costco filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit that alleged it had knowingly sold shrimp that had been produced with the use of slavery, and it was granted by the court.

Monica Sud had originally filed a lawsuit against Costco (COST) in August of last year. She claimed that the retailer had been selling shrimp raised with feed that had been collected by fishing boats in Thailand that use slave labor. Sud added that she had personally purchased the affected product without knowing its backstory.

Costco stated on its website that it has a “supplier Code of Conduct which prohibits human rights abuses in our supply chain,” blatantly misleading consumers, according to the lawsuit.

Costco filed a motion of dismissal, acquired by Consumerist, stating that Sud’s lawsuit doesn’t fulfill Article III requirements. In other words, it lacks “subject matter jurisdiction.” In order to satisfy Article III, she would have had to suffer concrete “injury of fact,” and not only have been affected in a hypothetical sense.

Because Sud was a Costco member, the retailer was able to track her purchase history. The record didn’t show that she had purchased shrimp imported from Thailand, but she had instead purchased a product imported from Vietnam and Indonesia. Because her complaint specified Thailand, the court granted Costco’s motion.

However, the court dismissed Costco’s request to prevent the defendant from “renewing the arguments.” This gives Sud leeway to amend her complaint. She can either expand it to include countries other than Thailand, or she can seek another representative who had purchased the affected product.

Costco could not immediately be reached for comment.

About the Author
By Michal Addady
See full bioRight Arrow Button Icon
Rankings
  • 100 Best Companies
  • Fortune 500
  • Global 500
  • Fortune 500 Europe
  • Most Powerful Women
  • Future 50
  • World’s Most Admired Companies
  • See All Rankings
Sections
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Success
  • Tech
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Environment
  • Fortune Crypto
  • Health
  • Retail
  • Lifestyle
  • Politics
  • Newsletters
  • Magazine
  • Features
  • Commentary
  • Mpw
  • CEO Initiative
  • Conferences
  • Personal Finance
  • Education
Customer Support
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Customer Service Portal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms Of Use
  • Single Issues For Purchase
  • International Print
Commercial Services
  • Advertising
  • Fortune Brand Studio
  • Fortune Analytics
  • Fortune Conferences
  • Business Development
About Us
  • About Us
  • Editorial Calendar
  • Press Center
  • Work At Fortune
  • Diversity And Inclusion
  • Terms And Conditions
  • Site Map

© 2025 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information
FORTUNE is a trademark of Fortune Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.