Case Law | World | Business

Ukrainian civilians sue Intel, AMD, Texas Instruments, and more — alleging negligence and export-control failures.

Introduction

A series of high-profile lawsuits filed in Dallas County, Texas this week alleges that some of America’s most prominent semiconductor manufacturers played a role — albeit indirectly — in deadly Russian missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian civilians. Ukrainian plaintiffs, including those killed or injured in strikes between 2023 and 2025, accuse companies such as Intel Corp., Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Texas Instruments Inc., and distributor Mouser Electronics of failing to prevent their chips and electronic components from being diverted into weapons systems used by Russia and its allies. (United24 Media)

The lawsuits mark a novel legal strategy by victims of foreign warfare, turning to U.S. state courts to seek redress from U.S. corporations — rather than governments — for alleged negligence and violations of export-control responsibilities that plaintiffs say contributed to civilian harm abroad.

What the Lawsuits Allege

Filed under Texas state law rather than in Ukraine or federal court, the five separate complaints assert that the defendants committed “domestic corporate negligence,” alleging they knew or should have known their products were being diverted through intermediaries into Russia’s military supply chain despite U.S. export restrictions and sanctions. (The Texas Lawbook)

According to the filings:

• Components manufactured or distributed by the defendants — including microchips, processors, and programmable devices — were forensically identified in the wreckage of Russian KH-101 cruise missiles, Iskander ballistic missiles, and Iranian-made drones deployed in attacks on Ukrainian cities. (Newsmax)
• The suits link these components to deadly strikes, including attacks on civilian infrastructure and a 2024 Russian missile strike on a children’s hospital in Kyiv, in which multiple civilians were killed or severely injured. (Newsmax)
• Plaintiffs argue that the companies “ignored warning signs” and failed to implement robust export-control, distributor-screening, and diversion-prevention systems that could have kept restricted technology out of hostile hands. (The Texas Lawbook)

Each lawsuit seeks more than $1 million in damages for individual plaintiffs — including families of those killed and individuals with life-altering injuries — that stem from specific attacks tied to alleged chip usage in weapons systems. (Dallas News)

Why the Cases Are in Texas

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, led by high-profile U.S. mass-tort attorney Mikal Watts and colleagues, chose Texas state court because all four defendants either have headquarters or major operations in the state. The suits emphasize that Ukrainian courts are “unsafe or inadequate” due to the ongoing war, making Texas a more practical and secure forum for litigation. (Ground News)

According to the complaints, defendants owed a “common-law duty of care” to prevent foreseeable harm. The filings argue that the companies’ conduct — including allegedly inadequate oversight of distributors and third-party resellers — breached that duty and foreseeably contributed to the diversion and misuse of U.S. technology by Russian and Iranian military actors. (The Texas Lawbook)

Statements and Company Positions

So far, defendants have largely refrained from detailed comment. A Mouser Electronics spokesperson said the company “deeply respects the legal process and will respond in court, versus the media.” (The Texas Lawbook)

An Intel spokesperson reiterated that the company does not conduct business in Russia and claims to comply with U.S. export laws and sanctions, including suspending sales to Russia and Belarus after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. (Yahoo Finance) AMD and Texas Instruments did not provide immediate public statements in connection with the lawsuits.

Legal and Policy Context

Although U.S. export controls and sanctions regime prohibit the sale of semiconductor components to Russia and Iran, the lawsuits allege systemic failures in compliance practices and supply-chain oversight that allowed restricted technology to be diverted through shell companies and intermediaries. (Aldous Law)

The legal theory underlying the complaints rests on established common-law negligence principles, asserting that it was reasonably foreseeable that inadequate controls could lead to American-made technology aiding hostile military forces and harming civilians. Plaintiffs argue that defendants chose profit over precaution, resulting in contributions to civilian deaths and injuries. (Newsmax)

These cases also intersect with broader concerns about global supply-chain security, enforcement of export controls, and corporate responsibility amid geopolitical conflict — issues that have drawn attention from regulators, lawmakers, and human rights advocates alike. (AInvest)

Conclusion

The Dallas-filed lawsuits against Intel, AMD, Texas Instruments, and Mouser Electronics signal a bold legal approach by Ukrainian civilians seeking accountability for the human toll of the Russia-Ukraine war. By framing these claims under Texas state law and focusing on corporate conduct rather than governmental action, plaintiffs aim not only for monetary relief but to compel stronger industry safeguards against the diversion of sensitive technology into weapons systems.

As the litigation unfolds, courts will grapple with complex questions about the reach of domestic negligence law in the context of international armed conflict, the duties of private companies in enforcing export controls, and the prospects for civil claims based on global supply-chain vulnerabilities. At stake is not only compensation for victims but potentially new legal contours for corporate accountability in the age of increasingly globalized and geopolitically entangled technology markets.