Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ukrainian citizens injured or killed in Russian military airstrikes between March 2023 and April 2025 sued U.S. semiconductor manufacturers and distributors—Texas Instruments, Advanced Micro Devices, Intel, and Mouser Electronics—under state tort law. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ semiconductor components were found in Russian weapons used in the attacks on Ukrainian cities.
Plaintiffs brought claims for negligence, gross negligence, aiding and encouraging tortious conduct, fraudulent concealment by nondisclosure, and joint enterprise. Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing both that federal export control laws preempted plaintiffs’ state-law claims and that plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead causation and duty.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that plaintiffs’ state tort claims are not federally preempted by the Export Controls Act of 2018 or the Export Administration Regulations. The court rejected defendants’ field preemption argument, finding Congress did not clearly manifest an intent to completely oust state tort law remedies in this context. The court also rejected conflict preemption, determining that the modest inconsistency between the negligence standard (“should have known”) and the EAR’s knowledge standard (“knowledge”) does not create an unacceptable obstacle to federal objectives.
However, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on other grounds. Most critically, plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead causation—an essential element of tort claims. While plaintiffs alleged on information and belief that defendants’ products were found in weapons causing injuries, sources cited by plaintiffs also showed components from numerous other companies in Russian weapons. This made defendants’ liability merely “consistent with” their conduct rather than plausible. Additionally, plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a cognizable duty of care, particularly regarding foreseeability of third-party criminal conduct (Russian military attacks). The court found the temporal gap and multiple intermediaries made the causal chain too attenuated—components sold at unspecified times to unknown parties who eventually supplied Russian weapons.
Key Takeaways
- Federal export control law does not preempt state tort claims against domestic semiconductor manufacturers and distributors, even regarding military weapons.
- Plaintiffs must plausibly allege that defendants’ specific products caused their specific injuries, not merely that products “were found in” weapons generally.
- The causal chain cannot be too attenuated; when components were sold years earlier to unknown intermediaries who eventually supplied weapons to foreign militaries, causation becomes implausible at the pleading stage.
- Foreseeability of third-party criminal conduct must be established based on facts known at the time of defendants’ conduct, not hindsight about eventual uses.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that U.S. companies cannot invoke federal export control law as a blanket shield against state tort liability. However, the ruling significantly raises the bar for plaintiffs alleging injuries from foreign military weapons. Plaintiffs must trace specific products to specific incidents with plausible causation, not rely on general allegations about the presence of defendants’ components in an adversary’s weapons arsenal. The decision may substantially limit future litigation involving supply chains and foreign military use of commercial components.
The court acknowledged the tragic circumstances but emphasized that federal preemption law requires clear Congressional intent to displace state remedies. By allowing leave to replead, the court signaled that with more specific allegations—particularly about timing, intermediary actors, and causation—plaintiffs might state cognizable claims. The ruling thus provides a roadmap for potential amended complaints while maintaining strict pleading requirements.