US Court Blocks Apartheid Lawsuit Against Ford and IBM
A US appeals court has upheld the dismissal of claims against Ford and IBM, ending a 14-year legal battle over alleged complicity in South African apartheid abuses.
A US federal appeals court has ruled that Ford Motor Company and IBM cannot be held liable in American courts for their alleged roles in supporting South Africa’s apartheid regime, bringing to a close more than a decade of litigation by South African plaintiffs seeking damages for human rights abuses.
The decision, handed down by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in July 2015, upheld an earlier dismissal of the claims. Plaintiffs had accused Ford of supplying vehicles to South African security forces and sharing information about anti-apartheid activists, while IBM was alleged to have provided technology and training that enabled racial segregation and the denationalisation of black South Africans.
Alien Tort Statute and the Claims Against Ford
The lawsuits were filed under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a 1789 law that allows foreign nationals to seek damages in US courts for violations of international law. The South African plaintiffs argued that Ford’s US headquarters maintained rigid control over its South African operations and directly enabled abuses, including identifying anti-apartheid activists among its employees, which allegedly led to arrests and torture.
Ford was also accused of selling specially modified vehicles to security forces between 1973 and 1994, allegedly used in violent repression. The company denied direct responsibility, pointing to its long history of manufacturing in South Africa and ongoing expansion in the region.
Why the Court Dismissed the Claims
The appeals court found that neither Ford nor IBM could be held directly responsible for alleged abuses by their South African subsidiaries. Judge José Cabranes, writing for a unanimous panel, said there was no evidence that Ford’s US operations purposefully facilitated apartheid-era crimes. Simply knowing about or being complicit in abuses was not enough under the ATS; there had to be proof of purposeful support from the US.
Similarly, the court concluded that IBM’s development of hardware and software for population data collection, while used by the apartheid regime, did not constitute purposeful facilitation of human rights abuses. The ruling echoed a 2013 Supreme Court decision that limited the reach of the ATS, making it harder for foreign plaintiffs to sue US companies for overseas conduct.
Aftermath and Industry Implications
The decision ended the possibility of holding Ford and IBM liable in US courts for their business activities during apartheid. Most other companies originally named in the litigation, including Daimler and Rheinmetall, had already been dismissed. The case had drawn opposition from the US government, business groups and the South African government, who argued that such lawsuits could undermine international relations and South Africa’s post-apartheid reconciliation policies.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs criticised the ruling and indicated they would consider appealing to the Supreme Court, but the legal barriers imposed by recent precedents make further progress unlikely. Ford has reiterated its commitment to South Africa, where it has operated for over 90 years.
